Everyone understands that Socialism is not Communism, right?

[T. A. Gardner]

Right so you are saying 'socialism is good as long as we see it goes to smart and capable people who use it well.'

The GI Bill is NOT "socialism." It is payment in kind for services rendered. Those who can use it worked for years in the military to get those benefits. Socialism does not require anyone to do anything in order to receive the benefits of socialism.

That is a big change from your prior argument about socialism being bad. And something you will never know when before the first check is given out.

Welcome to our side comrade.

Socialism is bad. It's a something for nothing deal, and that doesn't work applied to an entire society or nation. The GI Bill was something for something. You served. You did your job in the military. The government as part of that service gave you benefits other than a paycheck that extended beyond your years of service.

 

[QP!]

The GI Bill is NOT "socialism." It is payment in kind for services rendered. Those who can use it worked for years in the military to get those benefits. Socialism does not require anyone to do anything in order to receive the benefits of socialism.

Socialism is bad. It's a something for nothing deal, and that doesn't work applied to an entire society or nation. The GI Bill was something for something. You served. You did your job in the military. The government as part of that service gave you benefits other than a paycheck that extended beyond your years of service.

You are recyclijng your already failed and disproven arguments and you just admitted socialism was good in this case...

...Rebranding why the government spent money doesn't change what the money did economically.

Call the G.I. Bill 'payment for services' or the Interstates 'defense' if you like, but they were still massive public investments that socialized the costs of education, housing, and shipping. Private enterprise couldn't build them, so the state did.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You are recyclijng your already failed and disproven arguments and you just admitted socialism was good in this case...

"Disproven?" How did that happen? Did those that received GI Bill benefits serve in the military honorably for years before receiving them or not? Did they work and perform their military job? Was or was it not part of their contracted pay and benefits?

What did someone on food stamps, or getting section 8, or for that matter an outright welfare check do to earn those benefits? Do explain what they did for society that society owes them a living in return.

 

[QP!]

"Disproven?" How did that happen? ...

Let's address that point by point and you can try and disprove any of the points:

- The GI bill were still massive public investments
- that socialized
- the costs of education
- housing
- and shipping

Do you disagree with any of those points? Did the gov't take in mass amounts of tax payer money and then redistribute (socialism) to education, housing and shipping?

Be very specific in what you might think did not happen there?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Let's address that point by point and you can try and disprove any of the points:

- The GI bill were still massive public investments
- that socialized
- the costs of education
- housing
- and shipping

Do you disagree with any of those points? Did the gov't take in mass amounts of tax payer money and then redistribute (socialism) to education, housing and shipping?

Be very specific in what you might think did not happen there?

The training and use of personnel in the military for 4 to 8 years is a massive public investment. I did 6 years active in the US Navy nuclear power program. I got a basic apprenticeship training in being an electrician, followed by the equivalent of an Associate's in nuclear engineering and then spent 4 years at sea operating a nuclear power plant's electrical system.

The GI Bill was one of the contracted benefits I received for doing that work, just like the training was. There was nothing "Socialized" about it. The government hired me to do a job and agreed to train me to do it. They then gave me additional benefits beyond direct pay for that service. That is no different from what many large corporations do.

So, I totally disagree with every one of your points. You are clearly either clueless or deliberately being obtuse here.

I agreed to serve. In return, I received training, a paid job, and benefits for a set period of service. That is NOT Socialism in any form whatsoever. Socialism does not require those receiving benefits to have done anything to deserve those benefits.

 

[Sailor]

You are recyclijng your already failed and disproven arguments and you just admitted socialism was good in this case...

You truly are dumber than fuck. Enough said.

 

[Sailor]

Do you disagree with any of those points? Did the gov't take in mass amounts of tax payer money and then redistribute (socialism) to education, housing and shipping?

Be very specific in what you might think did not happen there?

This is the only part you got right. All paid for by capitalism. Every penny.

 

[QP!]

The training and use of personnel in the military for 4 to 8 years is a massive public investment. I did 6 years active in the US Navy nuclear power program. I got a basic apprenticeship training in being an electrician, followed by the equivalent of an Associate's in nuclear engineering and then spent 4 years at sea operating a nuclear power plant's electrical system.

The GI Bill was one of the contracted benefits I received for doing that work, just like the training was. There was nothing "Socialized" about it. The government hired me to do a job and agreed to train me to do it. They then gave me additional benefits beyond direct pay for that service. That is no different from what many large corporations do.

So, I totally disagree with every one of your points. You are clearly either clueless or deliberately being obtuse here.

I agreed to serve. In return, I received training, a paid job, and benefits for a set period of service. That is NOT Socialism in any form whatsoever. Socialism does not require those receiving benefits to have done anything to deserve those benefits.

the entire military structure is socialism just as policing is.

it is the government saying to the citizens 'we will not allow you to use your own dollars to decide on military and policing needs and instead we, BIG GOVERNMENT, will forcibly take your money and redistribute in a way that we think is better for you and country'.

So nothing you say above counters the FACT the military is socialism, and any contract or benefits you get are socialism.

What we learned today Terry is you collect Socialism and as you CANNOT deal with that FACT you lie to yourself, tell yourself you deserve and earned it and thus it is not socialism. IT IS.

You would not have got the job in the military without socialism (forced taking of taxes and redistribution) and you would not have got the benefits you enjoyed.

 

[Sailor]

the entire military structure is socialism just as policing is.

it is the government saying to the citizens 'we will not allow you to use your own dollars to decide on military and policing needs and instead we, BIG GOVERNMENT, will forcibly take your money and redistribute in a way that we think is better for you and country'.

So nothing you say above counters the FACT the military is socialism, and any contract or benefits you get are socialism.

What we learned today Terry is you collect Socialism and as you CANNOT deal with that FACT you lie to yourself, tell yourself you deserve and earned it and thus it is not socialism. IT IS.

You would not have got the job in the military without socialism (forced taking of taxes and redistribution) and you would not have got the benefits you enjoyed.

Wrong again QP. You just still do not understand the definition of socialism. The militaries job is national defense and state power (when needed). Socialism is an economic system meant to control how goods are made and shared. Big difference. The last time someone confused an economic system using actual people to control how goods were made was slavery. democrats of course.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

the entire military structure is socialism just as policing is.

it is the government saying to the citizens 'we will not allow you to use your own dollars to decide on military and policing needs and instead we, BIG GOVERNMENT, will forcibly take your money and redistribute in a way that we think is better for you and country'.

So nothing you say above counters the FACT the military is socialism, and any contract or benefits you get are socialism.

What we learned today Terry is you collect Socialism and as you CANNOT deal with that FACT you lie to yourself, tell yourself you deserve and earned it and thus it is not socialism. IT IS.

You would not have got the job in the military without socialism (forced taking of taxes and redistribution) and you would not have got the benefits you enjoyed.

You might have an argument here if there were a draft and universal service. But there isn't. The US military is volunteer and contractual. That the government is running it doesn't automatically make it "Socialized."

 

[QP!]

You might have an argument here if there were a draft and universal service. But there isn't. The US military is volunteer and contractual. That the government is running it doesn't automatically make it "Socialized."

FALSE.

Socialism does not originate with the individual (you) volunteering to enter the army offering you money and benefits. The socialism begins with the government PRIOR forcibly taking money from citizens (taxes) and creating a structure to redistribute it for the GREATER GOOD.

In the case of the military the government does that by taking the private wealth of citizens through taxation, which is then redistributed by the state into publicly owned, non-profit institutions. Because these services protect all citizens equally regardless of their individual financial contribution, they represent a deliberate rejection of free-market capitalism in favour of collective, state-managed social good.

You do not get to say 'ya but i Terry liked the other taxpayers money they were offering me so i took it voluntarily and thus ...not socialism' when you got someone else's money without their specific consent which was taken from them.

You, Terry are a product of socialism, moreso than most Americans who did not join the military and just as many welfare recipients do you have grown to resent and slight the very hand up you got and pretend you did not get it. YOU DID.

 

[AProudLefty]

The training and use of personnel in the military for 4 to 8 years is a massive public investment. I did 6 years active in the US Navy nuclear power program. I got a basic apprenticeship training in being an electrician, followed by the equivalent of an Associate's in nuclear engineering and then spent 4 years at sea operating a nuclear power plant's electrical system.

The GI Bill was one of the contracted benefits I received for doing that work, just like the training was. There was nothing "Socialized" about it. The government hired me to do a job and agreed to train me to do it. They then gave me additional benefits beyond direct pay for that service. That is no different from what many large corporations do.

So, I totally disagree with every one of your points. You are clearly either clueless or deliberately being obtuse here.

I agreed to serve. In return, I received training, a paid job, and benefits for a set period of service. That is NOT Socialism in any form whatsoever. Socialism does not require those receiving benefits to have done anything to deserve those benefits.

Grok, is working not a requirement in socialism?

No. Working (or contributing labor according to ability) is generally expected or required under socialism, both in classical theory and in historical practice. It is not a system of free consumption without contribution.

 

[Ross Dolan]

The training and use of personnel in the military for 4 to 8 years is a massive public investment. I did 6 years active in the US Navy nuclear power program. I got a basic apprenticeship training in being an electrician, followed by the equivalent of an Associate's in nuclear engineering and then spent 4 years at sea operating a nuclear power plant's electrical system.

The GI Bill was one of the contracted benefits I received for doing that work, just like the training was. There was nothing "Socialized" about it. The government hired me to do a job and agreed to train me to do it. They then gave me additional benefits beyond direct pay for that service. That is no different from what many large corporations do.

So, I totally disagree with every one of your points. You are clearly either clueless or deliberately being obtuse here.

I agreed to serve. In return, I received training, a paid job, and benefits for a set period of service. That is NOT Socialism in any form whatsoever. Socialism does not require those receiving benefits to have done anything to deserve those benefits.

Horse shit...and I am pretty sure you realize that.

QP is correct in his assessment. I, too, benefited from the VA program (which the GOP would like to cut)...but by damn near every metric, it much more closely resembles socialism rather than capitalism.

Nothing whatever wrong with some strength gain by introducing some socialistic strains into our economy. Doing so will help improve it...which, right now, it desperately needs.

 

[QP!]

Horse shit...and I am pretty sure you realize that.

QP is correct in his assessment. I, too, benefited from the VA program (which the GOP would like to cut)...but by damn near every metric, it much more closely resembles socialism rather than capitalism.

Nothing whatever wrong with some strength gain by introducing some socialistic strains into our economy. Doing so will help improve it...which, right now, it desperately needs.

@T. A. Gardner is locked in his spin zone as he realizes now he was a benefactor of socialism and he is trying to argue that 'as long as he took socialism provided money voluntarily then it is not socialism.' It is one of his most stupid arguments to date in a long list of stupid ones.

This is what is key from my prior post and what makes this a socialist gov't program and it is not whether the person who takes the money and benefits does so voluntarily or not...

"...by (the govt) taking the private wealth of citizens through taxation, which is then redistributed by the state into publicly owned, non-profit institutions. Because these services protect all citizens equally regardless of their individual financial contribution, they represent a deliberate rejection of free-market capitalism in favour of collective, state-managed social good..."

 

[Sailor]

QP got his dumb fuck democrat ass kicked here by TA. And he just keeps drooling on.....

 

[AProudLefty]

QP got his dumb fuck democrat ass kicked here by TA. And he just keeps drooling on.....

Grok spanked T. A.'s ass.

 

[Jarod]

Ive been away from this thread, great stuff.

 

[Jarod]

Socialism can be democratic, Communism cannot.

From AI -

Summary Table​

Feature	Socialism	Communism
Political system	Can be democratic or authoritarian	Historically one-party; theory envisions a stateless society
Private property	Usually allows personal property and often some private business	Personal property allowed in theory; productive property held collectively
Markets	Often mixed with markets	Traditionally replaced by central planning
Goal	Greater equality and social ownership in varying degrees	Classless, stateless, communist society
Examples today	Many democratic socialist or social democratic parties in Europe	No major country operates Marx's theoretical end state; states such as China, Cuba, and Vietnam are led by communist parties but use differing mixes of state control and

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Lionfish]