Young Americans Prefer Socialism Because They Are Ignorant of the Past

First topic message reminder :

My favorite lesbian, feminist.

"Everything is so easy now," Ms. Paglia continues. "The stores are so plentifully supplied. You just go in and buy fruits and vegetables from all over the world." Undergrads, who've studied neither economics nor history, "have a sense that this is the way life has always been. Because they've never been exposed to history, they have no idea that these are recent attainments that come from a very specific economic system."

Capitalism, she continues, has "produced this cornucopia around us. But the young seem to believe in having the government run everything, and that the private companies that are doing things for profit around them, and supplying them with goods, will somehow exist forever."


https://reason.com/2019/09/03/young-americans-prefer-socialism-because-they-are-ignorant-of-the-past-camille-paglia/?fbclid=IwAR2FqoqKc5RUuS0sHnR2ngfo15FWV2FSvmtacRyLdf7j8zG_ur1z6G8lWJQ

phildidge wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia#Politics

This not ultra conservative in any shape or form, but then anyone right of stalin is for Quill and he has never met her. That is complete bullshit

Great article Maddog and this is the problem with young socialists today. As many are apologists for Stalin, Mao, lenin etc.

phildidge wrote:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camille_Paglia#Politics

This not ultra conservative in any shape or form, but then anyone right of stalin is for Quill and he has never met her. That is complete bullshit

Great article Maddog and this is the problem with young socialists today. As many are apologists for Stalin, Mao, lenin etc.

Well, her and Quill are buddies......................

Maddog wrote:The single largest item in the 2019 federal budget (contributing heavily to the aforementioned deficits and unfunded liabilities) is Social Security. The second-largest item is defense. The US government spends more on defense than any other country in the world—by far. In fact, it spends about as much as the next eight countries combined. That is to say, the US defense budget is approximately equal to the combined defense budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

Is spending of that magnitude necessary or even remotely justifiable? Probably not. We’ve all heard infamous examples of gross waste and financial incompetence in the Department of Defense (DoD)—from $21 trillion over a couple of decades that wasn’t correctly accounted for to $1,280 cups, $999 pliers, and $640 toilet seats.

https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/

Next!  

Wow. They seem incredibly paranoid.

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:The single largest item in the 2019 federal budget (contributing heavily to the aforementioned deficits and unfunded liabilities) is Social Security. The second-largest item is defense. The US government spends more on defense than any other country in the world—by far. In fact, it spends about as much as the next eight countries combined. That is to say, the US defense budget is approximately equal to the combined defense budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

Is spending of that magnitude necessary or even remotely justifiable? Probably not. We’ve all heard infamous examples of gross waste and financial incompetence in the Department of Defense (DoD)—from $21 trillion over a couple of decades that wasn’t correctly accounted for to $1,280 cups, $999 pliers, and $640 toilet seats.

https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/

Next!  

Wow. They seem incredibly paranoid.

And wasteful.

Hardly a model anyone should follow.

Maddog wrote:

eddie wrote:

Maddog wrote:The single largest item in the 2019 federal budget (contributing heavily to the aforementioned deficits and unfunded liabilities) is Social Security. The second-largest item is defense. The US government spends more on defense than any other country in the world—by far. In fact, it spends about as much as the next eight countries combined. That is to say, the US defense budget is approximately equal to the combined defense budgets of China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, Germany, and Japan.

Is spending of that magnitude necessary or even remotely justifiable? Probably not. We’ve all heard infamous examples of gross waste and financial incompetence in the Department of Defense (DoD)—from $21 trillion over a couple of decades that wasn’t correctly accounted for to $1,280 cups, $999 pliers, and $640 toilet seats.

https://fee.org/articles/the-f-35-project-has-been-a-disastrous-waste-of-money/

Next!  

Wow. They seem incredibly paranoid.

And wasteful.

Hardly a model anyone should follow.

I've always said that most or all of the funding for a national health insurance system, along with a more robust safety net for the out-of-work, could come from a healthy cut to military spending.

But this isn't waste or paranoia.

It's a demonstrable pattern of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, using the U.S. military to further the interests of corporations through "interventions" throughout the world.

The U.S. defense apparatus has been used, from Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to Chile, to (at times) topple democratically-elected leaders who proposed ANYTHING that would hurt corporate profits and clear the path for lucrative new projects.

Look no further than how much money former V.P. Cheney's old company Halliburton made off the U.S. taxpayer from the Iraq war. Look at the pipeline in Afghanistan. Look into forced privatization of national oil fields. Google "Operation Condor."

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And wasteful.

Hardly a model anyone should follow.

I've always said that most or all of the funding for a national health insurance system, along with a more robust safety net for the out-of-work, could come from a healthy cut to military spending.

But this isn't waste or paranoia.

It's a demonstrable pattern of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, using the U.S. military to further the interests of corporations through "interventions" throughout the world.

The U.S. defense apparatus has been used, from Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to Chile, to (at times) topple democratically-elected leaders who proposed ANYTHING that would hurt corporate profits and clear the path for lucrative new projects.

Look no further than how much money former V.P. Cheney's old company Halliburton made off the U.S. taxpayer from the Iraq war. Look at the pipeline in Afghanistan. Look into forced privatization of national oil fields. Google "Operation Condor."

Do you think it will run as well as the military?

Ben Reilly wrote:

Maddog wrote:

And wasteful.

Hardly a model anyone should follow.

I've always said that most or all of the funding for a national health insurance system, along with a more robust safety net for the out-of-work, could come from a healthy cut to military spending.

But this isn't waste or paranoia.

It's a demonstrable pattern of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, using the U.S. military to further the interests of corporations through "interventions" throughout the world.

The U.S. defense apparatus has been used, from Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to Chile, to (at times) topple democratically-elected leaders who proposed ANYTHING that would hurt corporate profits and clear the path for lucrative new projects.

Look no further than how much money former V.P. Cheney's old company Halliburton made off the U.S. taxpayer from the Iraq war. Look at the pipeline in Afghanistan. Look into forced privatization of national oil fields. Google "Operation Condor."

A simpler, more direct solution would be to merge the defense department and the department of health (or a national health service) into a single agency.  After all, they both have the same mission: to defend the populace from harm (of any type). It requires only that one broaden the definition of harm. As types of warfare expand--cyber warfare, economic warfare, chemical warfare--the differences become indistinguishable in any event.

Also simpler would be to drop the idea of any insurance.  Insurance is essentially a betting transaction, in which the insurance carrier bets the calamity won't occur, and you bet, by your premium, it will.  You win the bet if the calamity occurs, and the insurance company must cover the loss.

That form of transaction encourages the insurance company to hedge their bets by excluding previous conditions, certain losses and imposing an overall coverage limit.  Also, insurance companies hedge their bets by simply excluding certain types of cures and medicines.  A more secure and honest type of transaction would be a direct payment for all ailments, which is what citizens want.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I've always said that most or all of the funding for a national health insurance system, along with a more robust safety net for the out-of-work, could come from a healthy cut to military spending.

But this isn't waste or paranoia.

It's a demonstrable pattern of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, using the U.S. military to further the interests of corporations through "interventions" throughout the world.

The U.S. defense apparatus has been used, from Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to Chile, to (at times) topple democratically-elected leaders who proposed ANYTHING that would hurt corporate profits and clear the path for lucrative new projects.

Look no further than how much money former V.P. Cheney's old company Halliburton made off the U.S. taxpayer from the Iraq war. Look at the pipeline in Afghanistan. Look into forced privatization of national oil fields. Google "Operation Condor."

Do you think it will run as well as the military?

I think I got my answer.

Just pointing out a better way.

Maddog wrote:

Ben Reilly wrote:

I've always said that most or all of the funding for a national health insurance system, along with a more robust safety net for the out-of-work, could come from a healthy cut to military spending.

But this isn't waste or paranoia.

It's a demonstrable pattern of politicians, particularly conservative politicians, using the U.S. military to further the interests of corporations through "interventions" throughout the world.

The U.S. defense apparatus has been used, from Iran to Iraq to Afghanistan to Chile, to (at times) topple democratically-elected leaders who proposed ANYTHING that would hurt corporate profits and clear the path for lucrative new projects.

Look no further than how much money former V.P. Cheney's old company Halliburton made off the U.S. taxpayer from the Iraq war. Look at the pipeline in Afghanistan. Look into forced privatization of national oil fields. Google "Operation Condor."

Do you think it will run as well as the military?

The Amerikan military system is so "well run" that they manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic "contractors" that are created and organised to effectively gouge the American tax system...

Carpenters basic claw hammers costing $hundreds, simple toilets costing $thousands$..

And creating foreign wars to "liberate" foreign resources, so as to justify the US "Defence" budget being twice as big as needs be.

'Wolfie wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Do you think it will run as well as the military?

The Amerikan military system is so "well run" that they manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic "contractors" that are created and organised to effectively gouge the American tax system...

Carpenters basic claw hammers costing $hundreds, simple toilets costing $thousands$..

And creating foreign wars to "liberate" foreign resources, so as to justify the US "Defence" budget being twice as big as needs be.

Thanks for making my point. If the American military is an example of socialism as quill suggests, it's not a very effective one.

Maddog wrote:

'Wolfie wrote:


The Amerikan military system is so "well run" that they manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic "contractors" that are created and organised to effectively gouge the American tax system...

Carpenters basic claw hammers costing $hundreds, simple toilets costing $thousands$..

And creating foreign wars to "liberate" foreign resources, so as to justify the US "Defence" budget being twice as big as needs be.

Thanks for making my point. If the American military is an example of socialism as quill suggests, it's not a very effective one.  

Nonsense.  Socialism is about capitalizing production.  The US military is totally capitalized by the collectivity of citizen taxpayers.  The US military is a socialist organization.

note:

The point made by Wolf has to do with capitalism, not the military.  Capitalists "manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic 'contractors'."  If that is your point, Redneck, then I agree. Capitalists do cheat to enhance profits.

Most contractors to the military work on a CPFF (cost-plus-fixed-fee) basis.  That means that the overcharging for hammers and toilets are laid at the feet of the contractors.  The rank and file of the military are concerned about the functioning of military activities, not production of hardware.

The US military performs to perfection...and it is a large socialist organization, perhaps the largest.

Original Quill wrote:

Maddog wrote:

Thanks for making my point. If the American military is an example of socialism as quill suggests, it's not a very effective one.  

Nonsense.  Socialism is about capitalizing production.  The US military is totally capitalized by the collectivity of citizen taxpayers.  The US military is a socialist organization.

note:

The point made by Wolf has to do with capitalism, not the military.  Capitalists "manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic 'contractors'."  If that is your point, Redneck, then I agree.  Capitalists do cheat to enhance profits.

Most contractors to the military work on a CPFF (cost-plus-fixed-fee) basis.  That means that the overcharging for hammers and toilets are laid at the feet of the contractors.  The rank and file of the military are concerned about the functioning of military activities, not production of hardware.

The US military performs to perfection...and it is a large socialist organization, perhaps the largest.

I know what point Wolf made.

Maddog wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Nonsense.  Socialism is about capitalizing production.  The US military is totally capitalized by the collectivity of citizen taxpayers.  The US military is a socialist organization.

note:

The point made by Wolf has to do with capitalism, not the military.  Capitalists "manage to waste $$billions$$ every year, basically to support mega-corporations and parasitic 'contractors'."  If that is your point, Redneck, then I agree.  Capitalists do cheat to enhance profits.

Most contractors to the military work on a CPFF (cost-plus-fixed-fee) basis.  That means that the overcharging for hammers and toilets are laid at the feet of the contractors.  The rank and file of the military are concerned about the functioning of military activities, not production of hardware.

The US military performs to perfection...and it is a large socialist organization, perhaps the largest.

I know what point Wolf made.  

You just don't have the answer, eh?

The point that wolf was making is that the US military isn't bad, but the capitalist infection that surrounds it is the problem.