ICE Union: Americans Should ‘Brace Themselves’

[red states rule]

Looks like Obama is doing what he can to secure the illegal immigrant vote at the expense of US citizens




A union leader for employees of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement says Americans need to “brace themselves” after the department released a memo outlining “procedural discretion” for arresting illegal immigrants.

The memo issued on June 17 informs ICE officials that they do not have to necessarily detain or deport illegal immigrants if they are enrolled in school, have family members in the U.S. military, or even if they are pregnant or nursing.

The guidelines also appear to suggest favorable consideration be given to those “who have graduated from a U.S. high school or have successfully pursued or are pursuing a college or advanced degrees at a legitimate institution of higher education in the United States” even if they are in the country illegally.

Chris Crane, President of the National ICE Council, which represents approximately 7,000 ICE agents, officers and employees, said the memo is only the latest in what has been a series of policy missteps for the agency.

“Any American concerned about immigration needs to brace themselves for what’s coming,” said Crane. “This is just one of many new ICE policies in queue aimed at stopping the enforcement of U.S. immigration laws in the United States.

http://losangeles.cbslocal.com/2011/06/27/ice-union-americans-should-brace-themselves-for-new-immigration-policy/

[gabosaurus]

Looks like Obama is doing what he can to secure the illegal immigrant vote at the expense of US citizens

Illegal immigrants don't have a vote. DUH...

[red states rule]

Illegal immigrants don't have a vote. DUH...

As usual Gabby you will ignore this post but I enjoy showing how uninformed (or how badly you ignore facts)

When illegals get a drivers license, they register to vote. I am sure you have heard of Moter Voter

Not one state bothers to check if the person getting the Driver License is a legal citizen

So when the illegals walks out of the DMV his his/her Driver License they are then allowed to vote.

Why the hell do you think Dems want to cater to illegals? They want their vote

OK Gabby now ignore this post or go into spin mode. Your choice

[gabosaurus]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

[red states rule]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

What states are those? In Md and PA they sign you up to vote on the spot.

But illegals do vote in our election and Dems welcome them with open arms and the open taxpayers checkbook

[gabosaurus]

I didn't see that listed on either state's voter registration site. Both say you need to register to vote independent of having a driver's license.

[red states rule]

I didn't see that listed on either state's voter registration site. Both say you need to register to vote independent of having a driver's license.


You fail to see alot of things Gabby

Illegals are voting in our elections Gabby and Dems love it




In last year's Senate race nearly 5000 illegal aliens cast their vote in the election.

The revelation comes from Colorado Secretary of State, Scott Gessler. Testifying before the House Administration Committee, Gessler said his department conducted a study comparing the state's voter registration database against driver's license records.

After doing so they discovered 12,000 illegal aliens living in the state who were registered to vote. Of these, 5,000 actually cast votes in the last election.

Gessler told Rep. Gregg Harper, the panel's Republican chairman, the study was a 'disturbing wake-up call" and hoped it would prompt every state to verify its procedures to prevent illegal voting.

Responding to the report, Harper stated, "We simply cannot have an electoral system that allows thousands of non-citizens to violate the law and vote in our elections. We must do more to protect the integrity of our electoral processes.”

The report of illegal voting was disputed by Texas Democrat, Rep. Charles Gonzales, who said it was "impossible to provide precise numbers" on the total number of illegals registered to vote. Without precise numbers he felt the entire study was to be called into question.

Gessler told the committee he would like to create a registration system requiring voters to provide written proof of their citizenship.

Measures to do so have been attempted in several states, however, they often face stiff opposition from liberal democrat groups who claim the requirements are discriminatory. Illegals rarely vote for Republicans.

http://www.greeleygazette.com/press/?p=9226

[Nukeman]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

Well in the states I have lived in, you register to vote at the same time our get your license. That way they have the SAME address for your voting district. You know when you change address your supposed to change your DL within 30 days right!!! So in MI, IN and FL they register you to vote at the same time the do your DL.

So tell me smart one, what states DON'T register at the same time.

I will say that you can go in and register WITHOUT getting a license but when ever you get a license they ask "would you like to register to vote today"... EVERY freaking time I have renewed my DL.....

[Kathianne]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

In IL if one applies for DL or makes changes to DL, they are asked to register to vote via motor voter. They need the DL and a recent bill from the location they are 'registering at.' That's it.

[logroller]

Whatever happened to property-owner voting rights? I believe it was still a qualification at the turn of the 20th century(at least in territories, ie Hawaii).

[fj1200]

Whatever happened to property-owner voting rights? I believe it was still a qualification at the turn of the 20th century(at least in territories, ie Hawaii).

Hooray for the landed gentry. :salute: Now THEY knew how to run a country.

[red states rule]

In IL if one applies for DL or makes changes to DL, they are asked to register to vote via motor voter. They need the DL and a recent bill from the location they are 'registering at.' That's it.

The way Gabby and her fellow libs are bowing down to illegals, in a few years Taco Bell will be the nations phone company

[J.T]

Illegal immigrants don't have a vote. DUH...
They do after we give them amnesty (again).

Of course, what do you expect? Hell, the Jews (The ADL) and others filed suit against Georgia for enforcing American sovereignty (http://24ahead.com/mexico-linked-groups-aclu-nilc-splc-seiu-sue-georgia-over-ar) and the media refuses to touch it. They're all on board with the plan. (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301325)

[red states rule]

They do after we give them amnesty (again).

Of course, what do you expect? Hell, the Jews (The ADL) and others filed suit against Georgia for enforcing American sovereignty (http://24ahead.com/mexico-linked-groups-aclu-nilc-splc-seiu-sue-georgia-over-ar) and the media refuses to touch it. They're all on board with the plan. (http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=301325)

I proved they do thanks to the lefts idea of "Motor Voter"

Gabby refuses to accept the facts which is typical for her

and the cost of illegals to the US taxpayer is staggering




An army of Justice Department attorneys has been working on the legal challenge for months. Ironically, the government will file the lawsuit against the much-needed immigration control law on the same week that a nationally recognized group reveals the exorbitant toll that illegal aliens are having on the ailing economy. A new report published by the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR) says that the annual cost of illegal immigration at the federal, state and local level is a staggering $113 billion.

State and local governments get stuck with a chunk of the tab—$84.2 billion—and the feds pick up the rest, according to the extensive national study that also breaks down figures by state. Not surprisingly, border states such as California, Arizona and Texas take the biggest hits and the single largest cost nationally is to educate the children of illegal aliens, $52 billion a year.

None of these astounding figures will likely be mentioned in the government’s lawsuit against Arizona’s new law, which was passed by the legislature in the absence of federal enforcement amid a dire crisis. The majority of Mexicans crossing illegally into Arizona are criminals, according to Governor Brewer, who points out that drug cartels have taken control and made most illegal border crossers “drug mules.”


http://www.judicialwatch.org/blog/2010/jul/illegal-immigrants-cost-u-s-taxpayers-113-billion-annually

[J.T]

Whatever happened to property-owner voting rights? I believe it was still a qualification at the turn of the 20th century(at least in territories, ie Hawaii).
You mean neofeudalism?

Friedman: It's one dollar, one vote

I thought it was fascists who wanted to merge monied (corporate) and State power?

[J.T]

I proved they do thanks to the lefts idea of "Motor Voter"

Gabby refuses to accept the facts which is typical for her

and the cost of illegals to the US taxpayer is staggering
Why would they enforce the borders when they're planning to do away with them altogether?

Only true regime change (that is, the abolition of Capitalism as a socio-political system) will lead to the enforcement of national sovereignty.

America needs to return to the socialism of the 50's (something akin to 'right' [social democratic] Shachtmanism)

[fj1200]

Why would they enforce the borders when they're planning to do away with them altogether?

Only true regime change (that is, the abolition of Capitalism as a socio-political system) will lead to the enforcement of national sovereignty.

America needs to return to the socialism of the 50's (something akin to 'right' [social democratic] Shachtmanism)

:rolleyes: Which would inevitably return us to the "prosperity" of the 30's. We need to return to Capitalism. ;)

[J.T]

:rolleyes: Which would inevitably return us to the "prosperity" of the 30's.
Yes, because the policies of the 50's retroactively, through a rip in the space-time continuum effected the conditions of the 30's :laugh:


We need to return to Capitalism. ;)

You mean sending children into the mines, Hoovervilles and slums, the wholesale massacre of workers by mobsters hired by the capitalists...?

Americans suffered under capitalism and prospered together under socialism. America needs a new Social Democratic party to restore her former greatness through proper socialism.

[fj1200]

Yes, because the policies of the 50's retroactively, through a rip in the space-time continuum effected the conditions of the 30's :laugh:

I wouldn't expect you to understand. The pain of the 30's came about due to the higher tax rates pushed through by Hoover/FDR and the pain of protectionism. You think high taxes and rejecting globalism are ingredients for success; history shows otherwise.

The 50's are long gone.


What accounts for the rise in income inequality since the 1970s? According to most economists, the answer lies in structural changes in the economy — in particular, technological changes that have raised the demand for highly skilled workers and thereby boosted their pay. Opposing this prevailing view, however, is Princeton economist and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman, winner of the 2008 Nobel Prize in economics. According to Krugman and a group of like-minded scholars, structural explanations of inequality are inadequate. They argue instead that changes in economic policies and social norms have played a major role in the widening of the income distribution.

Krugman and company have a point. For the quarter century or so after World War II, incomes were much more compressed than they are today. Since then, American society has experienced major changes in both political economy and cultural values. And both economic logic and empirical evidence provide reasons for concluding that those changes have helped to restrain low-end income growth while accelerating growth at the top of the income scale.

However, Krugman and his colleagues offer a highly selective and misleading account of the relevant changes. Looking back at the early postwar decades, they cherry-pick the historical record in a way that allows them to portray that time as an enlightened period of well-designed economic policies and healthy social norms. Such a rosy-colored view of the past fails as objective historical analysis. Instead, it amounts to ideologically motivated nostalgia.

Once those bygone policies and norms are seen in their totality, it should be clear that nostalgia for them is misplaced. The political economy of the early postwar decades, while it generated impressive results under the peculiar conditions of the time, is totally unsuited to serve as a model for 21st-century policymakers. And as to the social attitudes and values that undergirded that political economy, it is frankly astonishing that self-described progressives could find them attractive.
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9941


You mean sending children into the mines, Hoovervilles and slums, the wholesale massacre of workers by mobsters hired by the capitalists...?

Americans suffered under capitalism and prospered together under socialism. America needs a new Social Democratic party to restore her former greatness through proper socialism.

That's not my Capitalism. Capitalism is what has given us our superior living standards compared to most of the world and IMO allows other countries to ride our coattails. The pain of today is not because of free markets it is because we have been continually dumping social mores onto business to such an extent that we have lost our competititive advantage. As a friend of mine said, "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism."

[J.T]

That's not my Capitalism.

Yes, it is. For it is the only true capitalism. Wait, let me guess, you love the word 'capitalism' but you want socialism- you know, things like OSHA, workplace safety laws, environmental protections, minimum wages, and a decent standard of living the the masses...


Capitalism is what has given us our superior living standards compared to most of the world and IMO allows other countries to ride our coattails.

Wrong again. Socialism has done this. Look at the Congo, modern China, or our past colonies (eg: our invasion of Guatemala) to see what capitalism really is.

Do you even know what capitalism and socialism are?


The pain of today is not because of free markets

:laugh:


You realize that free markets don't exist under capitalism, right? Just ask John D. Rockefeller how capitalists view markets.


Competition is a sin
-John D. Rockefeller



The capitalist sets forth to destroy the market and instill monopoly and fascism.

If you want markets and competition, you must muzzle capitalism- and then you don't have true capitalism. You have some degree market socialism. In the U.S., it took the form of something akin to 'Right' (Social Democratic) Shachtmanism.

[fj1200]

Yes, it is. For it is the only true capitalism. Wait, let me guess, you love the word 'capitalism' but you want socialism- you know, things like OSHA, workplace safety laws, environmental protections, minimum wages, and a decent standard of living the the masses...

Nope, you should read some books that don't pollute your mind.


Wrong again. Socialism has done this. Look at the Congo, modern China, or our past colonies (eg: our invasion of Guatemala) to see what capitalism really is.

Do you even know what capitalism and socialism are?

That is utterly laughable. How many failures of socialism do you need to see?


You realize that free markets don't exist under capitalism, right? Just ask John D. Rockefeller how capitalists view markets.


Competition is a sin
-John D. Rockefeller


:rolleyes:


The capitalist sets forth to destroy the market and instill monopoly and fascism.

If you want markets and competition, you must muzzle capitalism- and then you don't have true capitalism. You have some degree market socialism. In the U.S., it took the form of something akin to 'Right' (Social Democratic) Shachtmanism.

They wouldn't be a Capitalist then now would they? Your arguments are so full of holes that I wouldn't know where to start.

[logroller]

I wouldn't expect you to understand. The pain of the 30's came about due to the higher tax rates pushed through by Hoover/FDR and the pain of protectionism. You think high taxes and rejecting globalism are ingredients for success; history shows otherwise.

The 50's are long gone.


http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9941



That's not my Capitalism. Capitalism is what has given us our superior living standards compared to most of the world and IMO allows other countries to ride our coattails. The pain of today is not because of free markets it is because we have been continually dumping social mores onto business to such an extent that we have lost our competititive advantage. As a friend of mine said, "when socialism fails, blame capitalism and demand more socialism."
A painfully successful tactic.:no:

Yes, it is. For it is the only true capitalism. Wait, let me guess, you love the word 'capitalism' but you want socialism- you know, things like OSHA, workplace safety laws, environmental protections, minimum wages, and a decent standard of living the the masses...

Wrong again. Socialism has done this. Look at the Congo, modern China, or our past colonies (eg: our invasion of Guatemala) to see what capitalism really is.

Do you even know what capitalism and socialism are?


:laugh:


You realize that free markets don't exist under capitalism, right? Just ask John D. Rockefeller how capitalists view markets.


Competition is a sin
-John D. Rockefeller



The capitalist sets forth to destroy the market and instill monopoly and fascism.

If you want markets and competition, you must muzzle capitalism- and then you don't have true capitalism. You have some degree market socialism. In the U.S., it took the form of something akin to 'Right' (Social Democratic) Shachtmanism.

You should define what YOU mean before condescending another. What, to you, is "true" capitalism? And more specifically, what is "false capitalism"? You may very well believe your opinion to true, but the facts I'm aware of dispute your opinion. Here's a little factoid I found informative:

The word "capitalism" was not used by Adam Smith-- it was Karl Marx who later coined the term. "Liassez faire" economics, as the theory is still identified meant, as the French term suggests, that government should leave the economy alone. This was a direct attack on mercantilism of the period. The essential tenants of capitalism, as developed by Smith, included:

(1) The means of production, land and capital, are privately owned. "Capital", here, means the plant and equipment used to produce goods and services.

(2) The economy is organized and coordinated through the interaction of buyers and sellers (or producers) in markets.

(3) Suppliers, the owners of land and capital as well as laborers, pursue their own self-interests in seeking maximum gain and profits from the use of their resources. Buyers of goods and services similarly spend their money to yield the greatest satisfaction.

(4) With suppliers and buyers pursuing self-interest the market is constructed in which the value (or price) of goods and services is determined through the "haggling" of seller and buyer.

(5) With a competitive market of buyers and sellers following self-interest, the economy is self-regulating and there is little role for government. The sovereign is necessary mainly to protect society from foreign attack, uphold the rights of private property, guarantee contracts, and assist, where necessary, in the building of "infrastructure", to include roads, canals, and similar "public" goods.


http://www.mgmtguru.com/mgt301/301_Lecture1Page5.htm

[fj1200]

Nice rebut, but alas... no rep, it must be spread.

[J.T]

The word "capitalism" was not used by Adam Smith-


The essential tenants of capitalism, as developed by Smith
So he defined a word he never used? :laugh:


with a competitive market of buyers and sellers following self-interest, the economy is self-regulatingYour magical invisible hand? Yeah, flaming rivers and lead in everything. A terrific system :laugh:

[fj1200]

So he defined a word he never used? :laugh:
Your magical invisible hand? Yeah, flaming rivers and lead in everything. A terrific system :laugh:

Still redefining words to suit your own viewpoint eh?

Nevertheless, true Socialism, the world's leading killer of man:

169,202,000 Murdered (http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE1.HTM)

[J.T]

Capitalism and the magical self-regulating market: Umm, the Cuyahoga River's on Fire ... Again (http://www.wired.com/science/discoveries/news/2007/06/dayintech_0622)

:clap:


Those who do not remember history...

[fj1200]

True Socialism, the cure for breathing/dissent.

:clap:

[logroller]

So he defined a word he never used? :laugh::laugh:

Well obviously if he didn't use the word, he can't very well define it. You, however, did use the word-- incorrectly, I might add.


" I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." -Adam Smith

[J.T]

Well obviously if he didn't use the word, he can't very well define it.

So now you say your earlier post was b.s.?


You, however, did use the word-- incorrectly, I might add.

Oh?

Do you even know what capitalism is? Do you know what socialism is? Do you know what communism is?


" I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good." -Adam Smith

Our rivers don't catch fire anymore and we no longer allow slavery. Also, things made in America generally don't contain toxic heavy metals.

But don't let facts or reality get in your way....

[fj1200]

Do you even know what capitalism is? Do you know what socialism is? Do you know what communism is?

...

But don't let facts or reality get in your way....

You pretty much ignore ALL conflicting viewpoints don't you? Capitalism... Socialism... the 50's...

True Socialism: If you disagree with it... make it disappear. ;)

[logroller]

So now you say your earlier post was b.s.?


Oh?

Do you even know what capitalism is? Do you know what socialism is? Do you know what communism is?



Our rivers don't catch fire anymore and we no longer allow slavery. Also, things made in America generally don't contain toxic heavy metals.

But don't let facts or reality get in your way....

Show me where I said Smith defined capitalism. What I quoted was the tenets of capitalism, as DEVELOPED by Smith-- not the same as defined. Just as Christianity was developed from Christ's teachings; he didn't define his teachings as Christian.

I disputed your use of capitalism as lacking competition (Rockefeller example). This propensity for man to act in his self-interest is a common theme. Smith didn't invent it any more than Marx did, it simple is-- that's a fact! Capitalism describes the private and personal ownership of capital(commodity)--"A commodity is, in the first place, an object outside of us, a thing that by its properties satisfies human wants of some sort or another. The nature of such wants, whether, for instance, they spring from the stomach or from fancy, makes no difference..."(Capital)-Marx Marx and Engels noted the propensity for those who owned the capital to use it for their own self-interests; coercing those who produce to create items of greater exchange-value than use-value; generating a profit which the workers share, but don't fully receive. This is because the bourgeouis could gain more from exchange than they could use themselves. The observation of the worker making less than he produced is a valid critique, but did he still have more than if he produced only what he needed? The issue is, would the prolitariat, collectively and voluntarily, only produce something of greater use? Or would they, once there basic needs were met, produce something of greater exchange? Thereby undoing the purely marxist model, ie state socialism/communism like soviet democracy or single-party dictatorships like Maoism.

Socialism requires the elimination of mankind's individual feelings of want. Within a society this is accomplished either through destruction of excess production value, ie revolution, or through authoritarian means- thereby creating a class/power struggle and undoing the very essence of socialism. So socialism, therefor, must decrease the production of society to keep everything equal.

All theories aside, in practice the greatest production known has been through capitalism, not socialism. Of course this requires the quantification rather than qualification, ie goods vs happiness; no doubt a concept purported by capitalists to be the most efficient means of production. And that is a valid critique, which one is free to reject, as neo-marxists have in the commune lifestyles of the 60's counter culture. But what is required of one who rejects capitalism is a rejection of the feelings of want, not need. For as marx put it:
"A house may be large or small; as long as the surrounding houses are equally small it satisfies all social demands for a dwelling. But let a palace arise beside the little house, and it shrinks from a little house to a hut. The little house shows now that its owner has only slight or no demands to make, and however high it may shoot in the course of civilization, if the neighbouring palace grows to an equal or even greater extent, the occupant of the the relatively small house will feel more and more uncomfortable, dissatisfied and cramped within its four walls." Wage-Labour and Capital and Value,...)(

that's all for now, what's your take?

[fj1200]

that's all for now, what's your take?

I doubt that he knows what you posted.

[J.T]

I disputed your use of capitalism as lacking competition (Rockefeller example).

That (monopoly and fascism) is the end goal of the capitalist. The Business Plot was the natural course of open and unbridled capitalism.


Socialism requires the elimination of mankind's individual feelings of want.

:laugh:

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Do you even know what socialism is? Socialism is a stage of socio-political and economic development characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. It also refers to any system likewise characterized. There are a number of socio-political systems that can develop (and have) during the socialist stage- social democracy and democratic socialism, for instance.


through authoritarian means- thereby creating a class/power struggle and undoing the very essence of socialism.

Oh, I see. You're one of those people who think bureaucratic collectivism, communism, and socialism are all the same thing, aren't you?


All theories aside, in practice the greatest production known has been through capitalism
Only for short periods. Capitalism is not sustainable, as the proletariat does not possess the wealth necessary to feed the machine and continue the cycle as real wages drop, the income gap widens, and capitalism naturally gives way to oligopoly, monopoly, fascism, and neofeudalism. Socialist systems such as social democracy have seen the mutual prosperity of both the capitalist class and the proletariat, as it still allows accumulation of large sums of wealth and the virtues of the markets (social democracy falling under the umbrella of market socialism) while protecting the masses and society as a whole from the worst abuses of unchecked capitalism through worker and environmental protections and regulation of business practices (so long as the capitalists interests are not allowed to use their capital to sway the regulators and install incremental fascism, as we see today with the revolving doors between corporations and offices of regulation). Socialism ensures the masses share sufficient portions of the surplus value they create to ensure an acceptable standard of living and to purchase those goods they create, continuing the cycle through which the classes enjoy mutual (if disproportionate) prosperity.


But what is required of one who rejects capitalism is a rejection of the feelings of want, not need
It is possible to reject capitalism without rejecting the capitalist mode of production. Indeed, many new-school social democrats embrace the capitalist mode of production and advocate 'welfare state capitalism', in which capitalists markets operate within certain limits and subject to certain levels of regulation and social welfare taxation to limit the accumulation of wealth in few hands. This was what we saw in the 50s, with much higher effective tax rates, stronger unions, and higher real income for the average worker. Such a system can also accept certain protectionist practices to discourage globalization in order to protect the nation's own proletariat. This would fall under the umbrella of socialism in a single nation (an idea usually associated with Leninist thought, though also adopted by many social democrats).

[J.T]

He posted Marx. Many of Marx's ideas are deeply flawed. For one thing, his writings seem to cling to the labour theory of value like some sort of idol. This fundamental mistake leaves many of his economic thoughts, arguments, and equations deeply flawed and unable to withstand great scrutiny.

[logroller]

That (monopoly and fascism) is the end goal of the capitalist. The Business Plot was the natural course of open and unbridled capitalism.
That's your assertion. As valid as my assertion socialism requires the elimination of wanting desire. It's a multifaceted issue, with few clear indicators.


Do you even know what socialism is?
Condescending questions are unproductive, I ask you to refrain-- please.


Socialism is a stage of socio-political and economic development characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles. It also refers to any system likewise characterized. There are a number of socio-political systems that can develop (and have) during the socialist stage- social democracy and democratic socialism, for instance
Agreed. They have developed, for a variety of reasons, but mostly through a social conscience ingrained within the society itself, not through mandate.

.
Oh, I see. You're one of those people who think bureaucratic collectivism, communism, and socialism are all the same thing, aren't you?

I don't think they're the same thing, but they're closely related. Per your defintition of socialism above, they each fit.


Only for short periods. Cycles of growth followed by contraction.
Capitalism is not sustainable, as the proletariat does not possess the wealth necessary to feed the machine Growth is sustained so long as there is a return on capital, be it labor or other resources.
and continue the cycle as real wages drop, the income gap widens, and capitalism naturally gives way to oligopoly, monopoly, fascism, and neofeudalism OK, so mankind is inherently selfish and seeks to maximize his share of the pie. Is the communist commissary exempt from this want and desire? the democratic socialist? Any market based system will exhibit these same qualities, good and bad. As the expansion of socialized economy is tempered, a decreased capital investment results, including labor! thus the prolitariat has (rather intention or not) shrunk the pie in an effort to have a great percentage.

Socialist systems such as social democracy have seen the mutual prosperity of both the capitalist class and the proletariat, as it still allows accumulation of large sums of wealth and the virtues of the markets (social democracy falling under the umbrella of market socialism) while protecting the masses and society as a whole from the worst abuses of unchecked capitalism through worker and environmental protections and regulation of business practices.
In a zero sum game, yes. However, productivity can increase through mechanization and other technological improvements. History evidences capitalistic endeavor maximizes this productivity growth. Of course there's going to be growing pains, but markets are self-correcting. Keynesian economics depends on manipulating the natural behavior, and alas, overdepends on it-- bringing about an even greater collapse of inflated capital value. I've had the fortune of talking in-dpeth with some who survived this period of our history, even those who received welfare(temporarily). And the lessons learned from their experience, as devastating as it was, instilled within the survivors a personal ethic which enabled this massively productive period of history, not Great Society mumbojumbo.


(so long as the capitalists interests are not allowed to use their capital to sway the regulators and install incremental fascism, as we see today with the revolving doors between corporations and offices of regulation). Do you think the democratic socialist states are immune to such corruption?


Socialism ensures the masses share sufficient portions of the surplus value they create to ensure an acceptable standard of living and to purchase those goods they create, continuing the cycle through which the classes enjoy mutual (if disproportionate) prosperity.

I would contend it is the capitalistic practices which have enabled the rise in productivity and std of living; example: what socialist country enjoyed a higher std of living than the US in the 1980's/'90's?


It is possible to reject capitalism without rejecting the capitalist mode of production.
Convrsely, can one reject socialism without rejecting social regulation and reform. Accountability is a desirable trait in a free-market, not just for the bourgeois, but the prolitariat as well; accountability, good and bad is a necessary check.


Indeed, many new-school social democrats embrace the capitalist mode of production and advocate 'welfare state capitalism', in which capitalists markets operate within certain limits and subject to certain levels of regulation and social welfare taxation to limit the accumulation of wealth in few hands. This was what we saw in the 50s, with much higher effective tax rates, stronger unions, and higher real income for the average worker.

The 50's: Within the context, of course, of two world wars about an economic collapse which preceded it (which served as the natural check to unbridled capitalism), a failed social policy of Prohibition and in addition to the industrial war machine and the massive investment into fixed and variable capital, previously untapped labor capital(women) and resource exploitation of the South Pacific-- fueling the interstate highway system, automobile production and unsustainable suburban sprawl; now so ingrained into the psche of American's we shudder to relinquish our dependence on foreign oil-- all thanks to government promoting the very same industries which would, less than a decade later, necessitate greater (and greater) regulation.(cough Dept of Energy) The saving grace of the era was thanks to the social practices of private investment which occurred in the same period having been learned from the Great Depression. Those men and women of the fifties lived well below their means, thus retaining the value of their labors and investing the balance. I've had the fortune of talking in-dpeth with some who survived this period of our history, even those who received welfare(temporarily). And the lessons learned from their experience, as devastating as it was, instilled within the survivors a personal ethic which enabled this massively productive period of history. The overwhelming consensus--work hard and save. Today's populus does relatively little saving; IMHO, b/c they have been encouraged by a 'welfare state' beset on removing personal risk and reward from one's own actions. Socialists wail at droppingfunding for planned parenthood, providing low and no cost birth control, while those same recipients clammor for the latest phone and service valued greater than the birth control they purportedly cannot afford. Which makes sense really, why not have someone else pay for it? Duh!



Such a system can also accept certain protectionist practices to discourage globalization in order to protect the nation's own proletariat. This would fall under the umbrella of socialism in a single nation (an idea usually associated with Leninist thought, though also adopted by many social democrats).
Isolationism was no match for imperialism, let alone global market capitalism.

[fj1200]

That (monopoly and fascism) is the end goal of the capitalist. The Business Plot was the natural course of open and unbridled capitalism.

No, The alleged Business Plot was a reaction against the failed policies of Hoover which were far from Capitalist and the proposed further encroaching of anti-business regulations that FDR was espousing. And that is even if the BP myth is to be accepted.


By 1933 Butler was denouncing capitalism and bankers, confessing that as a Marine general "I was a racketeer for capitalism."[10] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_Plot#cite_note-9)

So the rejecter of capitalism is now a shill for the "end goal of the capitalist"?


It is possible to reject capitalism without rejecting the capitalist mode of production. Indeed, many new-school social democrats embrace the capitalist mode of production and advocate 'welfare state capitalism', in which capitalists markets operate within certain limits and subject to certain levels of regulation and social welfare taxation to limit the accumulation of wealth in few hands. This was what we saw in the 50s, with much higher effective tax rates, stronger unions, and higher real income for the average worker. Such a system can also accept certain protectionist practices to discourage globalization in order to protect the nation's own proletariat. This would fall under the umbrella of socialism in a single nation (an idea usually associated with Leninist thought, though also adopted by many social democrats).

Why do you reject the high tax, high regulation, protectionist history that brought about such pain in the 30's, and directly led to WWII BTW, to support a dichotomy that could only exist after the war in which every major global competitor had been utterly destroyed? We live in a global world and growth and prosperity would certainly pass us by if we instituted such policies.


Also, excellent post by logroller.

[J.T]

socialism requires the elimination of wanting desire.
You'll have a hard time proving Americans had eliminated desire in the 1950s.


Growth is sustained so long as there is a return on capital, be it labor or other resources.

And that great growth on capital is provided by either (A)the purchase of goods and services by the working class, which can only be ensured through sufficient wages and similar worker protections or (B) (the capitalists' preferred option) the enslavement and exploitation as the proletariat as serfs and a return to a system akin to feudalism. The monied reactionaries (and their useful idiots) in the U.S. are calling for the second option once again. Their first step is the call for disenfranchisement of the masses, so that the landed gentry can once again take their place as a legal aristocracy.


OK, so mankind is inherently selfish and seeks to maximize his share of the pie
Greed is a religion for some- and Rand is their prophet.


Any market based system will exhibit these same qualities, good and bad.
Hence the regulations Americans have long sought to put in place and see administered by disinterested parties outside the market itself. Sometimes it works better than others. Sometimes monied interests manage to merge their corporations with the regulators' offices and undo the entire system via incremental fascism. We see this with every report of a revolving door between oil companies and regulators or between the FCC and the largest TeleCom companies. These problems grow worse as the nation backslides toward crony capitalism, the wealth gap grows, and corporations (who are now 'persons' before the law) are allowed to stake their claims in a new post-democratic order. History shows us that both market anarchy and the abolition of the market lead to nothing good. Only a properly regulated and transparent market can serve to effectively see to the distribution of goods in society according to both need and desire and lead to prosperity for the greatest number of actors.


However, productivity can increase through mechanization and other technological improvements

No shit. Productivity has increased. Meanwhile, real wages and the standard of living have decreased. Needless to say, the wealth gap grows like nothing seen before.


Do you think the democratic socialist states are immune to such corruption?

I have never supported democratic socialism and never will. Much as unbridled capitalism leads us to fascism (corporatism), democratic socialism rapidly mutates into something akin to bureaucratic collectivism (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Bureaucratic_collectivism). Alas, there is a sizable number of democratic socialists in government today who imagine themselves as members of the party elite if they succeed in their plans for the Republic- not that they'd dare to call themselves openly by their proper name.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrA9zj94NuU



what socialist country enjoyed a higher std of living than the US in the 1980's/'90's



You mean what other socialist country? America entered the socialist stage of development some time ago, thought she's recently been regressing toward crony capitalism and corporatism.


Convrsely, can one reject socialism without rejecting social regulation and reform

Not quite. Regulation of the markets for the benefit and protection of the labouring classes is a collectivist measure, which brings society into the earliest phases of the socialist stage of socio-political and economic development. You seem to think socialism refers to some given system or group of systems. I asked before whether you know what socialism is. It seems the answer was in the negative.


two world wars

So we're back to the prosperity which stems from the broken windows? :rolleyes: To claim that WWII led to our internal prosperity (while much of our wealth left our nation to rebuild Japan and Europe) is to claim that the increase in aggregate demand from government [military] spending led to our prosperity. If you accept this Keynesian principle, then the natural question which follows is why building bombs and killing our sons led to prosperity then but not now, during our longest war ever- and the next question is to ask why mass mobilization and production of consumer goods would not generate an even greater boost in prosperity compared to the squandering of those products produced by blowing them up.

Why not build some ships and sink them ourselves, if this generates wealth?


previously untapped labor capital(women)

Yes, and that change has totally been a net positive for our society.... :rolleyes: Real wages have gone down, standard of living has gone down, the NEA has succeeded in breaking the American family and making the State the primary rearer of children as they said they intended to do...


fueling the interstate highway system

Yeah, what ever happened to that (http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/)?


automobile production
Oh, the seeds that would be sown (http://rutube.ru/tracks/3971045.html)...


we shudder to relinquish our dependence on foreign oil-- all thanks to government promoting the very same industries which would, less than a decade later, necessitate greater (and greater) regulation

Speaking of oil (http://www.amazon.com/Internal-Combustion-Corporations-Governments-Alternatives/dp/0312359071)


Those men and women of the fifties lived well below their means
Not really. It has more with artificially low interests rates encouraging the incurment of debt and people today trying to live above their means while serving to retard investment. People invest less today, in part, because artificially low interest rates mean it no longer pays to save and invest. Take monetary inflation. If I spend my dollar today, it is worth more than if I spend that same dollar bill next week after it's been in my wallet for seven days. This discourages saving, which has terrible effects on the economy in the long term.

[logroller]

Not sure greed fits the definition of religion, as there's little interest in the meaning of existance. Just because greed opiates the masses, with fools led about by its allure, doesn't qualify IMO. "Rand the profit"-- making Friedman a deciple:cool:

What I'm wonder is,if this isn't a question of the chicken or the egg; did big business arise from big govt, or vice versa? Certainly they're complementary, and now one requires the other, but what can people do about it-- bigger govt to regulate big biz just seems to exacerbate the problem. In the monopoly heyday, industrialists were given huge incentives from the federal govt to conquer, er I mean develop new territories free of competition-- the legal monopoly. So its difficult for me to blame the industrialist, he was given a deal that, had he passed up, someone else would have done the same.--again, self-interest/preservation.

Progressive tax had the desired effect of decreased wealth gap, but didn't solve the problem permanantly. Once growth stagnates, people will adapt, instigating new and improved measures for combatting the decline, privately and publically. Small business, le petit bourgeous, flourished as it did in mercantalism. Loopholes would develop where business would split, rather than face higher tax rates. I agree there are shortcomings to purely social and capital models, but the issue is rather government is capable of responding to new demands as they arise, and how responsive one can expect them to be.

You touched on a key point; transparency, a desirable quality in market economics. The problem I see with national socialism is the complexity of top-down administration makes transparency difficult to acheive, if not impossible. Its a delicate balance between the economy of scale of a socialized system and that of the free (and diverse) republic, just as markets depend on multiple players, so too does the republic require many differing and competing systems. Localized welfare, state county etc, has a far better ability to adapt to the needs of the market/society. Unfortunately, given the existence of not only national corps, but global ones, a monster has been created which cannot be controlled by reasonable means.

[fj1200]

Not sure greed fits the definition of religion, as there's little interest in the meaning of existance.

I don't think you can get through to him, you're arguing against his religion... and a false one at that.

[LuvRPgrl]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

I'm assuming you meant.... as a substitute for .....

SOUNDS LIKE YOU ARE MAKING RSR's arguement for him.

[LuvRPgrl]

You mean sending children into the mines, Hoovervilles and slums, the wholesale massacre of workers by mobsters hired by the capitalists...?.

Child, and slavery of others was pretty much universal then, and not a goal of true capatilists. It is however, the topic those who allow their hatred for any system other than their own desired system, so that the truth will not be known. Just the fact that you must focus on such dribble as PROOF of your POV shows that your arguement is weak AT BEST.




Americans suffered under capitalism and prospered together under socialism. America needs a new Social Democratic party to restore her former greatness through proper socialism.

When you alter history by revisionism, to suit your desires, then you wind up with results that suit your desire, no matter how much in error they may be.




Greed is a religion for some-.

Which doesnt mean all religions are greedy. A common fallacy for those wishing to erroneously perpetuate upon others, their selfish and immorally desired systems.

[BoogyMan]

In all states that I know of, you have to register to vote separate of holding a driver's license. If you are registered to vote, some states accept the driver's license is a substitute for your voters registration card.

But to be an undue burden on the American taxpayer by leeching off the public welfare system, you pretty much have to just show up. Just another Obama pie in the sky public stupidity display.

[LuvRPgrl]

Why would they enforce the borders when they're planning to do away with them altogether?)

Eliminating borders is more akin to capatilism than socialism.


Only true regime change (that is, the abolition of Capitalism as a socio-political system) will lead to the enforcement of national
sovereignty.)
National sovereignty should never be achieved by the abdication of FREEDOM.
National Sovereignty should be achieved by the will of the overwhelming majority of the people. Enforcing it by FORCING some to give up their FREEDOM is evil, immoral and just wrong.
.... Even if a collective peoples would choose to be socialist, nobody should be forced into it. If particular citizens in a geographic location are overwhelmingly engulfed by "socialists", the moral and SOCIALIST thing to do is to allow individual citizens to opt out, and not partake of the system. Either by forcing them to contribute (slavery), or allowing them to benefit (stealing).
.......ANY SYSTEM that deprives individuals of freedom is corrupt, immoral and doomed to failure. Enslaving ANY of its citizens is wrong.


America needs to return to the socialism of the 50's (something akin to 'right' [social democratic] Shachtmanism)

America neither is, or ever was, socialist. It has components of socialism, and continues to stray farther and farther in that direction, but still has a long ways to go before we destroy the country by having some enslave those who dont want to be.

Unfortunately, many of us don't have much of a choice. We must give up our homes and family to keep freedom. The IMPERICALISTIC SOCIALISTS are forcing and fostering this choice upon us.
........Throughout recorded history, people have been enslaving, and those seeking freedom have struck out into territories previously unexplored. But as the LOVERS OF TRUE FREEDOM, people who make their own way, once again are sucessful, the letchorous pervayors of EVIL SOCIALISM follow and again attempt to enslave LOVERS OF FREEDOM..... It is easily & unrefutably shown by looking at the history of people spreading into lands unpopulated.
.............Unpopulated lands have ONE magnet for people, FREEDOM from enslavement. ANYTHING else present in those lands is present in lands already populated. FREEDOM SEEKERS pay a high price when forced to flee to keep their freedom. This fact alone shows that there must be some compelling reason to go forth and be prosperous. The ONE AND ONLY DIFFERENCE of the unpopulated lands, and the populated ones is the absence of people who love to spread their evil of slavery.
......ANY ARGUEMENT AGAINST THIS BY DOING SOMETHING LIKE CLAIMING THAT THOSE WHO PERPETUATED BLATANT SLAVERY WERE CAPITALISTS, ARE MERELY ARGUING THAT THE CAPITALISTS OF THAT TIME WERE PRACTICING A FORM OF CAPITALISM THAT ISNT PURE.