|
|
| Socialism (1842343) | |
 |
|
| Home > OTChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|
|
|
| (1842345) | |
Re: Socialism |
|
|
Posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 30 19:05:02 2021, in response to Socialism, posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 18:52:05 2021. That's not socialism. |
|
|
| (1842347) | |
Re: Socialism |
|
|
Posted by Orange Blossom Special on Fri Jul 30 19:14:08 2021, in response to Re: Socialism, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 30 19:05:02 2021. According to A1M's logic, if the county paves your road, it's socialism.Even though private roads are nicer. |
|
|
| (1842348) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 19:17:46 2021, in response to Socialism, posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 18:52:05 2021. Hmm what?You really surprised that a RINO would use doublespeak? |
|
|
| (1842350) | |
Re: Socialism |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 19:21:26 2021, in response to Re: Socialism, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 30 19:05:02 2021. What's not?Mediocrecare and Mediocreaid are definitely socialism. |
|
|
| (1842351) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 19:22:23 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 19:17:46 2021. RINO?Elise Stefanik is a very strong Trump supporter. |
|
|
| (1842352) | |
Re: Socialism |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 19:23:49 2021, in response to Re: Socialism, posted by LuchAAA on Fri Jul 30 19:05:02 2021. Huh?If there are any American government programs that qualify as socialism, those are Medicare and Medicaid. |
|
|
| (1842353) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 19:24:50 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Fri Jul 30 19:17:46 2021. Why the question mark? That implies you don't consider Medicare and Medicaid socialism. |
|
|
| (1842395) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 09:24:05 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 19:24:50 2021. Bump. |
|
|
| (1842402) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 31 10:15:33 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Fri Jul 30 19:24:50 2021. Because, you stupid mother fucking shithead, a government sponsored program is not socialism. That's just a childish argument put forth by socialists to promote their agenda. |
|
|
| (1842419) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jul 31 12:46:11 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 31 10:15:33 2021. No, cultist. You pretend that to be the case because you want to internally justify your decades of working for a socialist entity (not that there’s anything wrong with that, to a normal person). |
|
|
| (1842425) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jul 31 14:03:42 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 31 10:15:33 2021. a government sponsored program is not socialismSorry, but it is. If the government sponsors it, they also control it. |
|
|
| (1842427) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 14:18:13 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jul 31 14:03:42 2021. So why the question mark, if you agree that it's socialism? |
|
|
| (1842429) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 31 14:40:11 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 31 10:15:33 2021. No you just want to defend your Trotsky Treasury that you earned on the taxpayers nickel. A normal person would just say “yeah I had a socialist income” and move along but since you’ve made Socialism the bogeyman you have to play word games. |
|
|
| (1842430) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 14:46:56 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 31 14:40:11 2021. As many people have been known to say: "Get your government hands off my Medicare." |
|
|
| (1842431) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jul 31 14:50:01 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 31 14:40:11 2021. Of course, being against “socialism” in general doesn’t mean that you can’t support socialism in specific areas. But conservatives generally believe in total dichotomies with no gray areas. |
|
|
| (1842432) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 31 14:54:32 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sat Jul 31 14:50:01 2021. Of course. I don’t want to see complete Socialism but bits and pieces are fine. I mean hey let’s all chip in and get the snow plowed |
|
|
| (1842435) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sat Jul 31 16:26:38 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sat Jul 31 14:40:11 2021. Yeah well, you worry about convincing me that it's socialism. You play your word-hymping while moI only need to worry about one check in the mail, two direct deposits and how to enjoy life for another month. |
|
|
| (1842443) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jul 31 17:42:01 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Sat Jul 31 14:03:42 2021. Police Departments are socialism? |
|
|
| (1842445) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 17:48:17 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jul 31 17:42:01 2021. Aren't they?That doesn't make them inherently bad. In places like Somalia the protection function is mostly provided by private enterprise. Some places in the US (gated communities) also have extensive private police services. |
|
|
| (1842446) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jul 31 18:03:00 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by mtk52983 on Sat Jul 31 17:42:01 2021. Police Departments are socialism?So are fire departments. At one time, insurance companies provided fire protection for their customers. Companies would set fire to homes insured by competing companies. A modern equivalent was towns disbanding their fire departments and contracting with private companies. Here's an account of what happened 23 years ago. https://www.nytimes.com/1998/03/13/nyregion/experiment-in-private-fire-protection-fails-for-a-westchester-village.html Experiment in Private Fire Protection Fails for a Westchester Village By William Glaberson March 13, 1998 Two years ago, this prosperous village in Westchester County drew national attention when it became the first municipality in the heavily unionized Northeast to hire a private company to provide fire protection. This week, three months after a $1 million home was destroyed by a fire, there was a verdict of sorts on privatization: Rye Brook decided to part with the private company and hire its own firefighters. ''It was not a success,'' the Mayor, Salvatore M. Cresenzi, said in an interview today. The story of Rye Brook's experiment with privatization, officials here say, is full of lessons for other communities attracted to businesses that promise efficiency in the delivery of essential services. ''I think people are going to tread very carefully on the privatization of public safety,'' said the Westchester County Executive, Andrew Spano. ''You have a responsibility to protect the citizens of your jurisdiction.'' In recent years, privatization -- the hiring of profit-making enterprises to run public services -- has been the most talked-about idea in local governments. There have been some successes, like the management of municipal sports arenas and convention centers. And there have been some notable failures, like the cancellation of contracts with a private company to run the public schools in Hartford and Baltimore. Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani of New York City has talked about privatization, but he has yet to bring about any large-scale change in this area. With municipalities everywhere struggling to contain costs, business executives who have promised to show political leaders how to manage such core services as fire protection have drawn special notice. When Rye Brook decided in 1996 to hire Rural Metro Corporation of Scottsdale, Ariz., to provide fire protection, the deal was presented as a test of whether the idea could work in the densely populated Northeast. For decades, some Western cities and suburbs have used privately owned fire departments. But those areas often lack the firefighter unions and the long traditions of professional and volunteer fire departments that exist in the New York region. Executives of Rural Metro, a publicly traded company that is the largest of a dozen private providers of fire protection in the country, had described the deal here as an experiment with national import. In a 1996 interview, Martin A. Yenawine, a company vice president, was quoted in the Central New York Business Journal as saying, ''If it can happen in the New York City area, it can happen anywhere.'' But from the start, the arrival of the profit-making company encountered resistance that sometimes included protests, threats and vandalism. Officials here say there were many causes of Rural Metro's problems, including hostility from unionized firefighters across the New York region who conducted a campaign intended to make residents of Rye Brook fear that they were being inadequately protected by the company. There was also hostility from volunteer firefighters who saw the company as a threat to old social traditions in many small towns. For firefighters everywhere, the arrival of the company was a fundamental threat, said Anthony Pagano, president of the Yonkers chapter of the International Association of Firefighters, a union. ''People might say, 'Maybe it's better that we go cheaper,' '' Mr. Pagano said today. ''But, you know, bean counters are counting beans, while we are fighting fires. That's dangerous to firefighters.'' Perhaps the biggest challenge to the privatization experiment was the bitter dispute that the arrangement set off between Rye Brook and the neighboring village of Port Chester. The feud aggravated old divisions between the wealthy village of Rye Brook, most of whose residents are white, and Port Chester, with its more racially diverse and blue-collar population. Before Rye Brook decided to hire a private company, it paid Port Chester $725,000 a year to provide fire protection. The amount was almost half of Port Chester's fire budget. Although Rye Brook officials had not expected any short-term savings with Rural Metro, they had hoped to gain a more effective firefighting service by acquiring control of firefighters and having firefighting equipment within the village. In what Mayor Cresenzi said was an effort to sabotage the experiment here, Port Chester said it would not to respond to calls for help from the private Rye Brook firefighters. Mayor Cresenzi said that the resistance from firefighters and the difficulties with Port Chester were obstacles to making privatization work. ''We thought it was the best for Rye Brook,'' he said bitterly. ''Other jurisdictions said, 'No way,' and they tried to undermine it and make sure it failed. That's what we were up against.'' The Port Chester fire chief, William M. Barnes, acknowledged that he was ordered by village officials not to respond to calls from Rye Brook. He said there were safety and financial reasons, but he declined to comment further. Port Chester's Mayor, Christine A. Korff, did not respond to telephone messages that were left with her secretary. Kurt M. Krumperman, Rural Metro's regional president for the Northeast, said one effect of the debate was that the company had difficulty keeping the on-call reserve firefighters that it relied on to supplement the nine full-time firefighters. He said people who took the $5.50-an-hour reserve jobs were subjected to pressure from opponents. ''The fact is that we are a for-profit company,'' Mr. Krumperman said, ''and that was just not well-received in the communities surrounding Rye Brook.'' The reserve firefighters living near Rye Brook kept resigning because of the pressure, Mr. Krumperman said, and the company was forced to look farther and farther away to maintain adequate staffing. Mayor Cresenzi said Rural Metro had promised that at least 25 reserve firefighters would respond to emergencies. These nagging problems turned into a crisis during the fire at the $1 million house on Rocking Horse Trail last December. Six full-time firefighters responded. But instead of the 25 reserve firefighters, there were only three. Port Chester did not respond to calls for help. Mayor Cresenzi said that a crowd gathered at the fire, and that its members seemed to include firefighters from neighboring communities who were willing to let the fire burn to prove a point. He said he heard someone in the crowd say, ''Let the Jews burn,'' which he took to be a sign of the generalized animosities between the village and some of its neighbors. The residents of the house were not Jewish. No people were injured, but the contract with Rural Metro was fatally injured. The owner of the house filed papers indicating an intention to sue Rye Brook, Rural Metro and Port Chester, accusing them of inadequate fire protection. The company and village officials say that even a fully staffed department could not have prevented the damage because the 911 call was made when the fire was already well under way. But with anxieties here rising, the village trustees quickly gave the company 60 days to provide adequate reserve staffing. Last Monday, the company notified the board that it could no longer promise to supply the required firefighters and recommended that the village return to a municipal department. On Tuesday, Rye Brook announced that it would move toward a village fire department over the next six months. Mr. Krumperman of Rural Metro said the experience had taught his company a lesson about private fire protection in this area of the country, where hostility to privatization is high. ''You have to pay attention to those kinds of acceptance issues,'' he said, ''and how surrounding communities will relate.'' Instead of the ambitious plans it talked about a few years ago, he said, Rural Metro is now concentrating in this part of the country on supplying for-profit fire protection merely as a supplement to government-run fire departments. To some experts on privatization, Rye Brook's experience is an example of how economic efficiency may not always be all that people want from their government services. Robert W. Bailey, a professor of public policy at Rutgers University in Camden, said that in many community fire departments, there are social and union traditions that may be considered valuable, but that a corporate vendor may not understand. Officials should be skeptical of privatization of services like fire protection, Mr. Bailey said. Basic municipal services, he said, ''are associated with cultural and political values.'' |
|
|
| (1842463) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 31 21:50:34 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 17:48:17 2021. No, they're not. They are a function of the government. |
|
|
| (1842464) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 31 21:51:08 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Stephen Bauman on Sat Jul 31 18:03:00 2021. No, they are not. |
|
|
| (1842467) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Dave on Sat Jul 31 22:16:19 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Sat Jul 31 17:48:17 2021. "Some places in the US (gated communities) also have extensive private police services."Unless they're off-duty LEO, they have detain but not arrest authority. |
|
|
| (1842483) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 04:14:02 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 31 21:50:34 2021. Taxpayer funded government entity. That is socialist |
|
|
| (1842492) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 05:39:36 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 04:14:02 2021. No it's not. People have mistakenly (all liberals trying to "prove" that essential government agencies are socialist) said this as a talking point, but it's not true. Laws are part of every type of government, police are there to enforce them. Nothing socialist about that. Free* lunch programs in schools is a form of socialism. |
|
|
| (1842495) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by mtk52983 on Sun Aug 1 06:05:46 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 05:39:36 2021. Making sure people don’t starve promotes the general welfare. Therefore, by your standard Free* Lunch programs are not socialist. Why should my tax dollars have to go to your fire department? If you want that protection you can contract directly with a fire department to provide coverage. |
|
|
| (1842502) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 07:17:48 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 05:39:36 2021. Socialism is an economic theory. Whether you enforce the laws, put out fires or plow snow, if the taxpayer is on the hook for paying for it it’s a socialist paycheck |
|
|
| (1842514) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Sun Aug 1 08:25:34 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 31 21:50:34 2021. They are a function of the government.How these functions are provided can make them "socialist." Are functions like fire protection purchased from for profit corporations or does government hire personnel and build/purchase facilities for fighting fires? The latter should be considered socialist. There are many ways to provide for "government functions." There's a similar situation regarding health care. There's socialized medicine, where the government owns hospitals, hires doctors and provides medical care. Two such examples are Great Britain and the Veterans Administration. There's medical insurance where third parties collect premiums from patients and pay independent medical providers. Government might subsidize premiums, however medical delivery is different from socialized medicine. Examples are the ACA, France, and many other countries. Single payer is when the third party insurance companies are a single government entity. Examples are Medicare and Canada. There's government subsidized healthcare without insurance companies through tax deductions for medical expenses or providing medical insurance to employees. All 4 forms involve taxpayers subsidizing medical expenses. |
|
|
| (1842524) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 1 08:48:39 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 05:39:36 2021. In other words, a government provision of goods or services is socialist when you don't like it, but not socialist if you do like it.Why don't you just admit, like many of the rest of us, that there are some forms of socialism you like, and some you don't like. I certainly don't want government owning the freight railroads, for example (along with lots of other things). |
|
|
| (1842528) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 08:54:12 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 07:17:48 2021. Minimum wage laws for private industry are socialism. Government providing certain services via government agencies is not. But you keep believing what you want. We can explain it to you but we can't understand it for you. |
|
|
| (1842531) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 1 08:57:49 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by BILLBKLYN on Sat Jul 31 21:50:34 2021. They are a function of the government.And? In the 1950s in Britain, producing steel and mining coal were functions of the government. Are you saying that made them not socialism? |
|
|
| (1842533) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:07:01 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 1 08:57:49 2021. I find it amusing that a few here are so invested in convincing others that certain government services are socialism. They are so desperate to prove their myth about the US that they are now bringing in wartime economies form other nations. God bless their little socialist brains. |
|
|
| (1842538) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 09:27:51 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 08:54:12 2021. Taxpayer funded government services are socialist. Your explanations are false because they’re wrong |
|
|
| (1842539) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 1 09:29:46 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:07:01 2021. What war did the UK fight in the 1950s?I find it amusing and expected that conservatives and hateful pricks are so desperate to justify their socialist paychecks that they will deny what is obviously socialism and when they lose, they just start with the epithets and insults. No wonder you so love your leader. He is just as much a hateful prick as you. |
|
|
| (1842541) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 09:32:15 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:07:01 2021. You’ve painted yourself into a corner because you can’t simultaneously call Socialism evil and deny that you’ve benefited from it. Enjoy your Trotsky treasury 🤣 |
|
|
| (1842546) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:40:47 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 09:27:51 2021. You hold onto that thought, Fred. It's not my mission in life to correct you. |
|
|
| (1842547) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:42:48 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Spider-Pig on Sun Aug 1 09:29:46 2021. Which by extrapolation would explain why you are a socialist cunt. |
|
|
| (1842548) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:44:58 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 09:32:15 2021. You continue to betray your own ignorance. |
|
|
| (1842553) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 10:00:12 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:44:58 2021. Beria Bucks |
|
|
| (1842554) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 10:12:17 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:40:47 2021. You could never correct me because you can’t even stand corrected 🤣Grow the fuck up, man |
|
|
| (1842558) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 11:09:10 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 10:12:17 2021. LOL. You are the one coming across as childish, Komrade |
|
|
| (1842563) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 12:25:53 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 11:09:10 2021. I come here to learn from the beacon of maturity |
|
|
| (1842571) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 1 12:44:33 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 09:07:01 2021. Anything that gives government control over any economic sector, unrelated to their primary role of enforcing laws and ensuring public safety, sure is socialism.Socialism really got its start with the 16th Amendment. It enshrines the second plank of communism in the US Constitution ("[a] heavy progressive or graduated income tax"); it also removed the requirement for income tax to be apportioned among the states and made the federal income tax permanent (which was originally unconstitutional to do). |
|
|
| (1842572) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 12:50:43 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 1 12:44:33 2021. Socialism is asserting government control over private sector economy. Police and fire are government agencies and by definition are not private sector. |
|
|
| (1842593) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 1 14:40:00 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 12:50:43 2021. Police and fire rescue are legitimate government roles and are not socialistic by definition. Volunteer fire departments are still around, though.Did you notice that of late, certain police departments act as if they are the personal guard of the mayors and/or governors, and even (in the case of Pelosi and the Capitol Police) the speaker of the house? |
|
|
| (1842594) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by AlM on Sun Aug 1 14:54:35 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Olog-hai on Sun Aug 1 14:40:00 2021. Police and fire rescue are legitimate government roles and are not socialistic by definition.So just because police and fire functions are most efficiently done by government, they aren't socialism, eh? |
|
|
| (1842597) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by Train Dude on Sun Aug 1 15:06:40 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by AlM on Sun Aug 1 14:54:35 2021. No asswipe. They exist with no profit motive. They have no share holders per se. A private police force or security guard Corp will have a profit motive. |
|
|
| (1842636) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 19:39:25 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by mtk52983 on Sun Aug 1 06:05:46 2021. Why should my tax dollars go to free* lunch programs? |
|
|
| (1842637) | |
Re: Socialism? |
|
|
Posted by BILLBKLYN on Sun Aug 1 19:42:04 2021, in response to Re: Socialism?, posted by Fred G on Sun Aug 1 07:17:48 2021. Not for enforcing laws. This has been debunked ad nauseaum |
|
|
[1 2] |
||
|
|
Page 1 of 2 |
|