Join In On The Action "Register Here" To View The Forums

Already a Member Login Here

Board index Forum Index
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 3:22 pm

Fate
In fact, I could argue the only reason you lazy socialists live such a good life is that the US has protected your hind ends for decades


Is that just a correlation or is it cause?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 28 Jan 2016, 4:39 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
In fact, I could argue the only reason you lazy socialists live such a good life is that the US has protected your hind ends for decades


Is that just a correlation or is it cause?


Socialism causes laziness. It also seems to induce stupidity.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 29 Jan 2016, 6:41 am

Fate
Socialism causes laziness
.
So when the GIs were given free tuition and low interest business loans they got lazy?
When Medicaid and Medicare were introduced Americans suddenly got lazy?
When Social Security was introduced Americans suddenly got lazy?

Here's 75 examples of socialism in the US. Which ones are making Americans lazy? (And please show cause .... )

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29 ... ed-America
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 29 Jan 2016, 9:11 am

rickyp wrote:Fate
Socialism causes laziness
.
So when the GIs were given free tuition and low interest business loans they got lazy?


Jackassery.

Were they lazy when they were getting screamed at in boot camp? Were they lazy when the enemy was shooting at them? Were they lazy when their ship was blown up and they were scrambling to save their lives? Were they lazy when they were wounded? Were they lazy when they were taken prisoner?

Just because you were too lazy to serve your country, don't take it out on those who risked their lives to defeat the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the Viet Cong.

When Medicaid and Medicare were introduced Americans suddenly got lazy?
When Social Security was introduced Americans suddenly got lazy?


Individual programs do not equal an entire system.

But, yes, to some extent Social Security makes people lazy. How so? Many don't take the time to examine how little this will give them in their retirement years. They fail to understand that most anyone with a modicum of sense could invest and earn a lot more. So, yes, it does engender laziness.

Here's 75 examples of socialism in the US. Which ones are making Americans lazy? (And please show cause .... )

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/3/29 ... ed-America


No. You don't get to post a list and make me deconstruct them all. Take a flying leap, you lazy socialist.

Oh, that would take too much work, wouldn't it? I apologize if I offended your lazy sensibilities.

Why don't you leave us alone and live in your worker's paradise? Canada has its system. We have ours. Without the US, the world would be a less safe place. Without Canada, meh, who would notice?
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 15994
Joined: 15 Apr 2004, 6:29 am

Post 29 Jan 2016, 4:00 pm

Paging Megyn Kelly....
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 30 Jan 2016, 3:56 pm

Fate
Were they lazy when they were getting screamed at in boot camp?

You said that socialism made people lazy.
The GI Bill is a socialist program. However it came after the GIs returned home... So since you did take the time to attempt to answer about the GI Bill, but apparently have a misconception about its timing, I'll give you another chance. How did the GI Bill make returning white GIs lazy?


Fate
don't take it out on those who risked their lives to defeat the Nazis, the Japanese, the North Koreans, the Chinese, and the Viet Cong.

Your the one who says the GI Bill made American GIs lazy, not me.
And besides, in both WWI and WWII and the Korean conflict there was a large alliance from all around the world including some of those socialist nations... In both the first two the US was actually pretty late to the show...
And the Viet Cong actually won.

Fate
But, yes, to some extent Social Security makes people lazy

\Before Social Security one in four American seniors lived in poverty. Now its 14% Still an awfully high number. In your view the 1 in 4 who ended up in poverty weren't lazy till Social Security came along. But now they are?
Please explain how this works..

Fate
You don't get to post a list and make me deconstruct them all.

Your the one making the blanket statement that socialism makes people lazy but when faced with the task of explaining which socialist programs in America are actually causing the laziness and how it comes about ....you run away.
An energetic, inquisitive person might try a few...

danivon
Paging Megyn Kelly....


She'd be a better candidate then the rest of the Republican crew... Though she has her own struggles with misinformation.

https://www.facebook.com/Megyn-Kelly-Fo ... 739100955/
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 30 Jan 2016, 7:24 pm

Pointless post . . . Or, just another rickyp sermon on the glories of socialism--and dishonest to boot.
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2016, 8:25 am

Fate
Pointless post

Yes.
Appealing to you for evidence of an assertion is usually pointless. You never have any.
Run away...
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 31 Jan 2016, 8:50 am

My question on the GI Bill: Does everyone get the GI Bill benefits? (No, they don't)

If it is given to some (via contract for services rendered) is it socialism? (No, it isn't)

Are you for recipients of welfare benefits getting benefits for "services rendered:? (I'm guessing not)

Why the dichotomy in your thinking?
User avatar
Statesman
 
Posts: 11324
Joined: 15 Aug 2000, 8:59 am

Post 31 Jan 2016, 2:33 pm

bbauska
My question on the GI Bill: Does everyone get the GI Bill benefits? (No, they don't)
If it is given to some (via contract for services rendered) is it socialism? (No, it isn't)
Are you for recipients of welfare benefits getting benefits for "services rendered:? (I'm guessing not)
Why the dichotomy in your thinking?

When government provides benefits to citizens from general taxation thats generally consiodered redistributive and socialist . (Not pure socialism.)

Everyone who served was able to apply for benenfits. However the application of Jim Crow laws at the State level essentially kept almost all black servicemen from benefiting.
What they got. Unemployment benefits. Low interest housing. Business loans. Free college tuition to Any college they could gain acceptance to. And sometimes their other expenses at college were paid.
This was not a reward for service. That was not expected when they signed up and in wars dating back to the revolution, American vets got few benefits after the fighting stopped. But in World War II the scale of the problem was huge -- 16 million Americans.
The program was social engineering designed to move 16 million Americans back into a changing society quickly and to increase the productivity and abilities of the work force quickly.
It was government intervention on a huge scale. And it consisted of benefits paid for out of general taxation .... It was entirely redistributive.
The nature of the programs, providing benefits to citizens from general taxation, was no different from programs like free tuition for college in Sweden or France.... only in that it was aimed at one group of unemployed. 16 million GIs. (8 million took advantage of free tuition by the way.)Before World War II, most Americans didn't have a high school diploma, much less a college degree. After the war, college enrollment exploded.
You quibble and say it was a reward for service... Okay. So socialism only for 16 million GIs...
Its still a social program.
And it is generally conceded to have been the reason that the white middle class grew so quickly through the 50s and 60s.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2016, 2:59 pm

rickyp wrote:Fate
Pointless post

Yes.
Appealing to you for evidence of an assertion is usually pointless. You never have any.
Run away...


That "sir," is a lie.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2016, 3:04 pm

rickyp wrote:bbauska
My question on the GI Bill: Does everyone get the GI Bill benefits? (No, they don't)
If it is given to some (via contract for services rendered) is it socialism? (No, it isn't)
Are you for recipients of welfare benefits getting benefits for "services rendered:? (I'm guessing not)
Why the dichotomy in your thinking?

When government provides benefits to citizens from general taxation thats generally consiodered redistributive and socialist . (Not pure socialism.)

Everyone who served was able to apply for benenfits. However the application of Jim Crow laws at the State level essentially kept almost all black servicemen from benefiting.
What they got. Unemployment benefits. Low interest housing. Business loans. Free college tuition to Any college they could gain acceptance to. And sometimes their other expenses at college were paid.
This was not a reward for service. That was not expected when they signed up and in wars dating back to the revolution, American vets got few benefits after the fighting stopped. But in World War II the scale of the problem was huge -- 16 million Americans.
The program was social engineering designed to move 16 million Americans back into a changing society quickly and to increase the productivity and abilities of the work force quickly.
It was government intervention on a huge scale. And it consisted of benefits paid for out of general taxation .... It was entirely redistributive.
The nature of the programs, providing benefits to citizens from general taxation, was no different from programs like free tuition for college in Sweden or France.... only in that it was aimed at one group of unemployed. 16 million GIs. (8 million took advantage of free tuition by the way.)Before World War II, most Americans didn't have a high school diploma, much less a college degree. After the war, college enrollment exploded.
You quibble and say it was a reward for service... Okay. So socialism only for 16 million GIs...
Its still a social program.
And it is generally conceded to have been the reason that the white middle class grew so quickly through the 50s and 60s.


This is your interpretation and not "fact."

Furthermore, you didn't address bbauska's point: since only veterans received VA benefits, it's not "socialist." The benefits went to one "class": those who served. Furthermore after the program began, anyone who wanted them knew how to get them--without regard to income, race, or economic background.

So, it's not "socialist" at all.

But, here's what we know: even if you were an American, you would not have served. If drafted, you would have fled to Canada. It's safe there.
User avatar
Administrator
 
Posts: 7374
Joined: 26 Jun 2000, 1:13 pm

Post 31 Jan 2016, 3:55 pm

Yes. Jim Crow was bad and unequal. They also have been gone for 50 years. Live in the here and now, and answer my questions, please.
User avatar
Adjutant
 
Posts: 3646
Joined: 17 May 2013, 3:32 pm

Post 31 Jan 2016, 6:53 pm

I think Ricky was answering you to a large extent. First of all, he points out that the initial GI bill was not contract based. It was passed in 1944 so many veterans who took advantage of it entered service before the bill was passed--therefore there was no inducement for veterans to get benefits for services rendered. And the contract theory also does not work as there was a draft.

The GI was passed to allow returning servicemen to better reintegrate into society, as opposed to the experience after WWI where veterans complained about their lack of benefits. Since so many people served in WWII it caused social and economic change. With so many veterans going to college and doing well, college became a destination for the masses not just the elite. And that investment in so many veterans certainly helped the post WWII recovery.

It trivializes the GI bill to talk about it as some contract. The fact is the government invested in a large proportion of the population and it paid off big time. The government did not have to do it. Sure, part of the program was gratitude for services rendered, but the other part was to benefit society as a whole. My dad benefited from the GI bill and got a college degree. Whether you want to call it socialism or not the GI bill allowed those from lower to middle classes access to higher education, allowing upward mobility. What a concept.
User avatar
Ambassador
 
Posts: 21062
Joined: 15 Jun 2002, 6:53 am

Post 31 Jan 2016, 7:11 pm

freeman3 wrote:I think Ricky was answering you to a large extent. First of all, he points out that the initial GI bill was not contract based. It was passed in 1944 so many veterans who took advantage of it entered service before the bill was passed--therefore there was no inducement for veterans to get benefits for services rendered. And the contract theory also does not work as there was a draft.

The GI was passed to allow returning servicemen to better reintegrate into society, as opposed to the experience after WWI where veterans complained about their lack of benefits. Since so many people served in WWII it caused social and economic change. With so many veterans going to college and doing well, college became a destination for the masses not just the elite. And that investment in so many veterans certainly helped the post WWII recovery.

It trivializes the GI bill to talk about it as some contract. The fact is the government invested in a large proportion of the population and it paid off big time. The government did not have to do it. Sure, part of the program was gratitude for services rendered, but the other part was to benefit society as a whole. My dad benefited from the GI bill and got a college degree. Whether you want to call it socialism or not the GI bill allowed those from lower to middle classes access to higher education, allowing upward mobility. What a concept.


However, the GI Bill remained in effect until the 1970's, so in that sense, yes, it was a "contract." Its benefits were available for decades to anyone who joined the military.

Furthermore, it benefitted those who had sacrificed for their country, not those who sat on their buttocks--or took some other course in life. Nothing in "socialism" requires that sort of risking of one's life in order to participate in a plan like this.

Socialism is great until you run out of other people's money. (Thatcher)

Btw, what in the American experience suggests that a massive grant of money to people who have never done anything is going to make them into productive members of society?

Something like 65% of Democrats believe the American system is rigged. Translation: they're a bunch of whiners who blame others for their failures.