Ask Me Help Desk - Socialism - Once and For All

Quote:

You are like a broken record, endlessly repeating yourself

That's kind of how the truth works.

As for our supposed arrogance, if you will check out the citizens of S. Korea, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Israel, and a number of others, they will express their appreciation for American backbone over the years that resulted in their current free states. It was not the Aussie military that forced the Soviets into practical bankruptcy and essentially ended the Cold War.

You're welcome.

And I'll say it again. I'm all for you guys undertaking your own national defense without depending on us sending the cavalry at the first threat of Aussie distress.

Quote:

It has always been so

If you really believe that, then the problem is beginning to become clear.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

If you really believe that, then the problem is beginning to become clear.

Yes the problem is clear, american arrogance, the "we rule the world" complex and the "the world owes us" complex. You are proud of destroying the soviet economy when in fact their military adventurism is what destroyed their economy and there is a lesson there that you have yet to learn. I'm glad that Australia had no part in destroying their economy and I'm glad we will take no part in destroying yours and yet you take pride in the destruction of other nations and the building up of aggressors like Japan and Germany. You once defended China and now you have made them your enemy. You do know it doesn't make sense.

There is a lot you could learn from our approach and yet you are too arrogant to realise it. You think might is right and an attitude like that inevitably leads to war. Your nation is presently being devastated by a disease that in your arrogance you say we can afford business as usual and it is too expensive to help out our destitue populations. Do you realise there may be a good reason why america is not mentioned in the Bible

Quote:

"we rule the world"

No.

Quote:

"the world owes us"

Absolutely.

Quote:

You are proud of destroying the soviet economy when in fact their military adventurism is what destroyed their economy and there is a lesson there that you have yet to learn.

I didn't say we destroyed their economy. I said they went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in a global arms race. As for the lesson we need to learn, for for the fifth or sixth time I will repeat that I am all for us scaling back and telling Australia (and others), "We are no longer your guarantee. We will be your ally, but we will not be your fence post to lean on. Take care of yourself. We are not your welfare daddy."

Quote:

Do you realise there may be a good reason why america is not mentioned in the Bible

You mean like Australia is???

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

No. Absolutely. I didn't say we destroyed their economy. I said they went bankrupt trying to keep up with us in a global arms race. As for the lesson we need to learn, for for the fifth or sixth time I will repeat that I am all for us scaling back and telling Australia (and others), "We are no longer your guarantee. We will be your ally, but we will not be your fence post to lean on. Take care of yourself. We are not your welfare daddy."

You mean like Australia is???

Yes the south land is mentioned, it seems we will suffer many trials. You have a treaty with us so there is a mutual obligation there something we take seriously and it is costly. We don't expect welfare from you, with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess.

Your Trump attitude is showing but your leader was a flash in the pan

Quote:

with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess.

And you think we're arrogant? Wow. Hello, Mr. Kettle.

Your 2019 GDP was about 1.4 tril. Ours was over 20 tril. You are 1/10th of our population, but much less than 1/10th of our GDP. So if you had our population, you would trail us by over 6 trillion dollars. So much for that argument.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/...ies-by-gdp.php

The south land is mentioned. That made me laugh.

There you go with the cookware analogy again. Good thing that thinking has been rejected again. Not that rejection will ever make you wingers go away, or stop ranting and raving about abnormal social norms.

Quote:

There you go with the cookware analogy again. Good thing that thinking has been rejected again. Not that rejection will ever make you wingers go away, or stop ranting and raving about abnormal social norms.

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that is a completely ridiculous, senseless statement that makes not one ounce of sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

And you think we're arrogant? Wow. Hello, Mr. Kettle.

Your 2019 GDP was about 1.4 tril. Ours was over 20 tril. You are 1/10th of our population, but much less than 1/10th of our GDP. So if you had our population, you would trail us by over 6 trillion dollars. So much for that argument.

https://statisticstimes.com/economy/...ies-by-gdp.php

The south land is mentioned. That made me laugh.

Let us put it in perspective, you have 15 times our population and it took you 250 years to grow your economy to where it is today where as we have grown to where we are in 120 years so your reading of statistics is selective. at best

Quote:

Joshua 15:19 And she said, Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. And he gave her the upper springs and the nether springs. (See JPS)Judges 1:15 And she said unto him, Give me a blessing; for that thou hast set me in the land of the South, give me also springs of water. And Caleb gave her the upper springs and the nether springs. (See JPS)Isaiah 21:1 The burden of the wilderness of the sea. As whirlwinds in the South sweeping on, it cometh from the wilderness, from a dreadful land. (See NIV)Ezekiel 20:46 Son of man, set thy face the way of Teman, and prophesy unto the south, and prophesy unto the forest of the field -- the south; (See NIV)

You are smaller than I thought. At any rate, the ratio is more like 13 to 1, which makes your per capita GDP still smaller than ours. Your mentioning of years is irrelevant. Have you had to lead the free world in two great world wars just in the past one hundred years? Didn't think so.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tomder55

Child labor laws are reforms of capitalism ;not socialism

When child labor was being denounced by the day's liberals, the factory and mine owners, capitalists all, were screaming bloody murder when threatened by losing their minimally paid 5-year-old workers, working 10-12 hours a day for a pittance. They gave reasons rooted in the Bible for employing children.

From 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period. But many southern states resisted, leading to the decision to work for a federal child labor law. While Congress passed such laws in 1916 and 1918, the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional

The factory and mine owners and other supporters of child labor sought a constitutional amendment authorizing federal child labor legislation and it passed in 1924, in the the CONSERVATIVE political climate of the 1920s.

Factory owners preferred hiring children because they were cheaper, less likely to strike, and more manageable than adults. However, factory work was grueling; a child working in a factory worked 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, for only one dollar. Many children began working as young as 7, tending machines in spinning mills or carrying heavy loads.

Finally, FDR's New Deal put an end to the abuse - NOT Capitalists.

Quote:

Military spending is defined in the constitution ;a mandated government service to provide for the common defense

As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to.

Quote:

Licensing drivers is a state issue ;but no that is not socialism

It fits your definition of government ruling individual citizens.

Quote:

Social Security ...... The government runs the Social Security system. It tracks Social Security earnings and benefits, approves or denies retirement benefit applications, collects taxes and distributes benefits . Social security is socialism and I do not like the ponzi scheme at all .

Yes, we know all that. You don't like it but the fact remains it has been the chief method to avoid poverty and sickness in old age. Government pensions are now world-wide in the industrial world doing an enormous amount of good but to you, it's just a Ponzi scheme.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

I don't mean to hurt your feelings, but that is a completely ridiculous, senseless statement that makes not one ounce of sense.

You didn't hurt my feelings at all. I expect things to be beyond your range of comprehension on most things. You never fail to reinforce that fact. I suppose that's why you have to tell folks how great you are and they should follow your lead for their own good. You handle rejection well though, as no matter how many times you get rejected you never waver from your own ideology, and that's not a compliment mind you, but an acceptance of the facts.

Make no mistake you are roundly rejected though AGAIN. Make better sense now? No matter, just keep going round and round hollering the sky is falling, and only you can fix it.

Blah, blah, blah. If you ever have anything sensible and meaningful to say, let me know. "Oh, you're rejected. Oh, you have no comprehension. Oh, that's not a compliment. Oh, it's like selling cookware. Oh, the sky is falling." Good grief. It sounds like a children's story.

You are a child you maroon. You aren't here to discuss or exchange ideas. You're here to chunk rocks and be sneaky about it. Homey ain't playing that. You got rocks in your hand, chunk 'em. I got rocks and I am going to chunk 'em at you so lets stop pretending and chunk some rocks.

yes let's all go and rock jl's roof, I've been doing it all morning with little effect

Quote:

Originally Posted by jlisenbe

You are smaller than I thought. At any rate, the ratio is more like 13 to 1, which makes your per capita GDP still smaller than ours. Your mentioning of years is irrelevant. Have you had to lead the free world in two great world wars just in the past one hundred years? Didn't think so.

How little you know of history we were in both wars long before you and were the terror of the Germans. You say you led the free world in both wars, in fact you were a reluctant participant and were only dragged kicking and screaming into them when attacked and you had to abandon your precious neutrality, you are being precious JL, so that is how I will refer to you in future "the precious"

Hello Clete. Don't aim for the roof, go for between the eyes.

Quote:

You are a child you maroon. You aren't here to discuss or exchange ideas. You're here to chunk rocks and be sneaky about it. Homey ain't playing that. You got rocks in your hand, chunk 'em. I got rocks and I am going to chunk 'em at you so lets stop pretending and chunk some rocks.

So is this chapter two of the children's story? You might have a real talent there! However, "Homey ain't playing that," doesn't even fit into a children's narrative. But you did give me a good laugh, and for that I thank you. That'll be a keeper for a long time. The more I think of it, the funnier it gets. "Homey ain't playing that while he chucks those rocks." "Homey wants to discuss his ideas!" "Homey really thinks someone else is being childish." It's hilarious. Really now. Homey???

Quote:

we were in both wars long before you and were the terror of the Germans.

Yep. Just the sight of those 14 Aussie soldiers practically ended the war right on the spot. What part of "leading" do you have trouble understanding? In what way have you guys "led the world" in the past century?

To be sure, I have respect for Australia and even admire your country. However, when you make these kind of absurd remarks, it doesn't help your cause. "with your record we know we wouldn't get it and if we had your population we would be the most successful nation on Earth, we have already demonstrated our economic prowess." Don't be guilty of over reach.

How precious, but then you are precious, savagely defending the reluctance of your nation to defend freedom because the truth is something you have not been taught. We lost thousands in WWI and in WWII while you sat at home dithering and growing rich but we did have some successes but you would not have been taught about them because, afterall, they were not american victories.

My own grandfather was lost at Ypres and you dare to sully his memory and his valour and denigrate his contribution
https://www.awm.gov.au/articles/atwa...for%20Britain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milita...%20Ge%20...%20

Quote:

When child labor was being denounced by the day's liberals, the factory and mine owners, capitalists all, were screaming bloody murder when threatened by losing their minimally paid 5-year-old workers, working 10-12 hours a day for a pittance. They gave reasons rooted in the Bible for employing children.

From 1902 to 1915, child labor committees emphasized reform through state legislatures. Many laws restricting child labor were passed as part of the progressive reform movement of this period. But many southern states resisted, leading to the decision to work for a federal child labor law. While Congress passed such laws in 1916 and 1918, the Supreme Court declared them unconstitutional

The factory and mine owners and other supporters of child labor sought a constitutional amendment authorizing federal child labor legislation and it passed in 1924, in the the CONSERVATIVE political climate of the 1920s.

Factory owners preferred hiring children because they were cheaper, less likely to strike, and more manageable than adults. However, factory work was grueling; a child working in a factory worked 12 to 18 hours a day, six days a week, for only one dollar. Many children began working as young as 7, tending machines in spinning mills or carrying heavy loads.

Finally, FDR's New Deal put an end to the abuse - NOT Capitalists.

Military spending is defined in the constitution ;a mandated government service to provide for the common defense

As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to.

Licensing drivers is a state issue ;but no that is not socialism

It fits your definition of government ruling individual citizens.

Social Security ...... The government runs the Social Security system. It tracks Social Security earnings and benefits, approves or denies retirement benefit applications, collects taxes and distributes benefits . Social security is socialism and I do not like the ponzi scheme at all .

Yes, we know all that. You don't like it but the fact remains it has been the chief method to avoid poverty and sickness in old age. Government pensions are now world-wide in the industrial world doing an enormous amount of good but to you, it's just a Ponzi scheme.

Child labor laws ....neither the worker nor the government owns the means of production. No form of capitalism except perhaps extreme laissez faire objects to some form of government regulation.

Quote:

As I said, it's not the transfer of money you object to, it's the REASON for the transfer of money you object to.

I don't object to constitutionally mandated spending .The Constitution empowers Congress to raise armed forces and for the President to be CIC.

Licenses . I stand by what I wrote. There is no right to drive .

Social Security is definitely a ponzi scheme.

a two-earner couple receiving an average wage — $44,600 per spouse in 2012 dollars — and turning 65 in 2010 would have paid $722,000 into Social Security and Medicare and can be expected to take out $966,000 in benefits. So, this couple will be paid about one-third more in benefits than they paid in taxes.

If a similar couple had retired in 1980, they would have gotten back almost three times what they put in. And if they had retired in 1960, they would have gotten back more than eight times what they paid in.

Put that aside . I have paid in much more individually than the 2 wage couple paid in from the example. But if I had worked my life and saved what the SS tax collected ,I would've gotten a much bigger return for my buck than what SS pays out . But the ponzi scheme is close to being realized. As more of us geezer boomers retire ;there are less workers paying in to support the system . It will in fact go bankrupt unless higher levels of payroll taxes are levied on the young workers ;or if the benefits paid out are cut ;or if the government really breaks it's promise and makes the whole system just another means tested welfare program.

Quote:

savagely defending the reluctance of your nation to defend freedom because the truth is something you have not been taught. We lost thousands in WWI and in WWII while you sat at home dithering and growing rich but we did have some successes but you would not have been taught about them because, afterall, they were not american victories.

Wow. I'm "savagely defending" my nation? I'm really impressed with myself! So again, at what time has Australia ever led the world in anything?

As to us supposedly sitting home, you need to make up your mind. If we don't go to war, you get upset. If we do go to war, you get upset. I get the impression that you just like getting upset.

Quote:

My own grandfather was lost at Ypres and you dare to sully his memory and his valour and denigrate his contribution

I'm not sullying anything, nor am I mocking Australia's military contributions. I'm enjoying myself a great deal by making fun of your constant tendency to greatly overstate and wildly exaggerate anything Australia does and then denigrate anything we have done. It is as predictable as the sun rising in the east.