The Lagacy of American Socialism

…The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families…

Read the Article

The article was written by Starr Parker, who by the way is black.

This is a subject liberals won't touch with a ten foot pole Cato. They're too damn scared.

Hell, every time I try to get Ziggy to discuss it on another thread he runs like a scalded yellow dog to the 19th century.

Cato wrote:…The legacy of American socialism is our blighted inner cities, dysfunctional inner city schools, and broken black families…

Read the Article

The article was written by Starr Parker, who by the way is black.

Tell us how unblighted New York City and Philadelphia were 150 years ago.

Why are you so damn scared of discussing entitlement programs Ziggy.

Is it that you know socialism is a colossal failure in every place it's been tried and if the topic is discussed, socialism and entitlement programs will be exposed for the failures they are or is it that you're a coward unwilling to back up his political views?

Why are you and Cato so scared of comparing 19th century American economics to 21st century American economics?

Because it's not relevant to the conversation and you're only using it as a diversionary tactic to avoid discussing the failures of socialism.

ziggy wrote:Why are you and Cato so scared of comparing 19th century American economics to 21st century American economics?

OK Ziggy, I'll bite. Why don't you tell us all about just how ethical and moral it is to take the fruit of one person's labor and give it to another. While you are at it, why don't you show as all the examples of people this wealth redistribution you love so much has helped. I'd like to see real examples, if you don't mind.

He doesn't want to discuss 19th century economics Cato.

He's scared to discuss entitlement programs and socialism because to do so would reveal the failures of both and Ziggy, the consummate coward, can't admit he's wrong on anything.

As I said, if he really wanted to discuss a comparison of the 19th century vs. the 21st century, he would start a thread for that discussion.

As it is, the ONLY time he brings the topic up is when faced with questions about entitlement programs and socialism.

Cato wrote:

ziggy wrote:Why are you and Cato so scared of comparing 19th century American economics to 21st century American economics?

OK Ziggy, I'll bite. Why don't you tell us all about just how ethical and moral it is to take the fruit of one person's labor and give it to another. While you are at it, why don't you show as all the examples of people this wealth redistribution you love so much has helped. I'd like to see real examples, if you don't mind.

Well, I think a while back Sodbuster used the example of his mother- who was able to live the last couple decades or so of her life with some dignity because of Social Security checks she received.

I now a local lady who was on what we know as "welfare"- a couple decades or more ago. Through the state WIN program- a state Department of Welfare operated "Welfare to Work" program, she got some job training, and was then hired to be a secretary for the local ambulance authority. She turned out to be a good employee, got off welfare, and is a productive worker today. But without the welfare program to take her through the tough times and to help her with job training, she says that she and her no-account husband (whom she later divorced) would have lived a miserable existence for "God only knows how long", she said.

Now, those are but two success stories. But in a larger sense, it is not about specific examples. It is about the effect of 20th century social programs for poor people overall compared to the plight of the poor without those programs. And by any measure, Americans overall are better off with the positive effects of the poverty relief social programs of the last two thirds of the 20th century than they were for the previous nearly century and a half in which there were virtually no social programs for the poor.

We cannot rationally look at social welfare for the poor in a vacuum of just what parts of it we don't like. We need to be able to look at it in the context of what the plight of the poor would be without public sponsored poverty relief.

I don't see much dignity in living off the fruits of the labor of others.

Stephanie wrote:I don't see much dignity in living off the fruits of the labor of others.

So how dignified is it to starve to death or freeze to death because of inadequate food and inadequate clothing and housing- as many impoverished Americans did by the tens of thousands, some accounts say millions, in the 19th and early 20th century?

Freeze to death? Seems to me that it was you who advocated just that for elderly people in New England because it was their fault they didn't winterize their older homes.

Am I wrong about that?

How on Earth did this country manage to grow and prosper and become the land of the free and home of the brave before the socialists took over and saved millions more from such horrible circumstances?

I'm not sure he flat out said it, but he certainly did imply it, Aaron.

Aaron wrote:Freeze to death? Seems to me that it was you who advocated just that for elderly people in New England because it was their fault they didn't winterize their older homes.

Am I wrong about that?

Yes, you are wrong about that too.

Stephanie wrote:How on Earth did this country manage to grow and prosper and become the land of the free and home of the brave before the socialists took over and saved millions more from such horrible circumstances?

America has grown and prospered many fold more in the past 75 years than in the previous 150 years.

Of course I am Ziggy. And so is Stephanie when she got the same impression I got, isn't she? And so were the other posters who got the same impression from your comments, correct.

You made a statement and WE ALL took it wrong, right Ziggy???

Stephanie wrote:I'm not sure he flat out said it, but he certainly did imply it, Aaron.

Stephanie, I don't expect any better out of Aaron; but I do of you.

What I "implied" was that people who have inadequately winterized houses can expect to need to buy more heating oil or whatever fuel they use to heat their home than they would if their house were better winterized.

The discussion was in the context of the per gallon cost of home heating oil.

And you said they should reap the consequences of their actions over the years for not winterizing their homes.

We all didn't get it wrong Ziggy. You said what you said so quit trying to weasel out of what you said.

This is why you have no credibility.

Ziggy,

When you say you have no sympathy for people who can't afford the high price of home heating oil because they failed to make their old homes energy efficient, that smacks of tough titty said the kitty.

I really like using my grandmother as an example. She is 91 years old and lives in a house that is 58 years old. She can't afford to winterize that home. She lives on Social Security. She never could afford to buy a new furnace or windows for that place. When the price of home heating oil goes through the roof, people like her suffer. They go without other necessities in order to keep their homes warm.

My grandmother is much more fortunate than a lot of other folks. She has devoted children who see to it she has everything she needs. They can afford to help her out a bit. Not everyone is so lucky.

Aaron wrote:And you said they should reap the consequences of their actions over the years for not winterizing their homes.

Those consequences are that they need to use more fuel to heat their home than they would if it were better winterized.

Elementary, Watson.

So why would you lie today about what you said then.

"I really like using my grandmother as an example. She is 91 years old and lives in a house that is 58 years old. She can't afford to winterize that home. She lives on Social Security. She never could afford to buy a new furnace or windows for that place. When the price of home heating oil goes through the roof, people like her suffer. They go without other necessities in order to keep their homes warm"

Yet you say we as a society should not show compassion and help her.

Because the republicans and ron paul say so.

well could you guys do something besides grade school drivel.

If you just want to exchange insults you can send private messages.

Just my opinion.

We could all learn something from your posts if you did not get caught up in that.

You both have much to offer.

ziggy wrote:And by any measure, Americans overall are better off with the positive effects of the poverty relief social programs of the last two thirds of the 20th century than they were for the previous nearly century and a half in which there were virtually no social programs for the poor.

Yea, what postive effects other than you can't go into parts of DC or New York without some welfare case cutting your throat.

Ziggy wrote:We cannot rationally look at social welfare for the poor in a vacuum of just what parts of it we don't like. We need to be able to look at it in the context of what the plight of the poor would be without public sponsored poverty relief.

Like Stephanie stated, how on earth did we make it before you socialists came along. What I don't understand is my parents went through the Great Depression and survived, without public assistance, as did many many others. Of course, these people were a bit different from you aqnd the outher socialists and the entitlement crowd of today, they weren't afraid to work nor did the expect a handout. What I fail to understand is how did so many people survive the Great Depression without public assistance and yet, you think people can't do that today.