Poll shows BYU students would vote for socialist

[Guest Godless]

19 minutes ago, LiterateParakeet said:

Cruz or Rubio would be good choices. Not my choice, but certainly reasonable choices.

I'd be okay with Rubio, not Cruz. He may have a more agreeable (and professional) personality than Trump, but I wasn't at all surprised to learn in a recent online survey that, according to the website, my political views actually align more with Trump than Cruz, though it's worth noting that my compatibility with both is pretty low. In terms of his politics, it's very hard for me to like Cruz more than Trump.   

[zil]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

My impression is in a system that follows democratic socialism, sooner or later the majority realizes that work is a sucker's game.  At that point you start seeing the producers withdrawing into what has been called "Irish democracy", or "going Galt"--described by James Scott as "the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people." 

The government then responds by implementing full-bore communism in order to keep the producers in line; and you wind up with a game of cat-and-mouse between the government and the producers until you reach economic collapse, a violent revolution, or both.

Actually, my experience is that things will be a bit different.  I base this on what I observed while working (as a contract employee for a US company) at the US Embassy in Moscow, Russia for three years in the early 1990s (how's that for blowing my anonymity?).

1) There will be die-hard believers who tolerate their miserable existence (they go to work and do a mediocre job - cuz doing better would look bad and doing worse would be unpatriotic; they live in dingy conditions, their government is totally corrupt - though they may not believe this; etc.).  They think anyone who is better off than them is a criminal and thief.  They'll stand in line at the government stores and complain that it's some evil person's fault when supplies run out before they get to the front of the line, but they won't do anything about it - because that's the government's job. This will be the majority.

2) There will be those who recognize the stupidity of it all and want something better, so they turn to "crime" to get better things: they'll work at the auto-manufacturing plant (for example) and steal pieces of a car one at a time until they can assemble it for themselves or for sale (cuz the only other way to get a car is connections or other corruption).  They'll work _hard_ (a cardinal sin in the communist world - you don't work harder, you don't work less, you work exactly as you are expected - least common denominator stuff); they'll find things, make things, sell things that you can't get anywhere except the black market.  There will be comparatively few of these people.

3) There will be those (just like in our own country) who lust for power, they want to be part of the elite.  They will do anything to be part of the elite.  They will either rise in government (usually through abuse of power and brutality, sometimes through other crimes, never honestly); or they will become a crime boss (often using force to get control over the people in #2 above).  These people will use their power and influence to live _far_ above all the rest of the population.

4) There will be the few who see and try to fight the evil with integrity.  They may excel at their work (they'll be hated by co-workers and punished by "superiors").  They may try to make political changes (they'll be thrown in prisons, insane asylums (trust me, death would be better than these places), or gulags).

It will end when the economic power of crime takes over the controlling power of government.  Then it will go through other phases of power struggle.  It will go on for a long, long time.  I'm not sure yet how it will end, except that the good news is, one day, the world will end.

Anyone who _wants_ to live in a mortal*, communist state, doesn't have any clue what they're talking about (or they're a lazy bum who is satisfied with the bare necessities (which are sometimes too long in coming), and want someone else to do all the thinking).

*Some people rightly desire the kind of bounty and equality which will exist in the celestial kingdom, and there's nothing wrong with this.  But they seem under the delusion that mortal man can make that happen without it being governed by the Lord Jesus Christ, and that's just not possible.

[Just_A_Guy]

20 minutes ago, Godless said:

I'd be okay with Rubio, not Cruz. He may have a more agreeable (and professional) personality than Trump, but I wasn't at all surprised to learn in a recent online survey that, according to the website, my political views actually align more with Trump than Cruz, though it's worth noting that my compatibility with both is pretty low. In terms of his politics, it's very hard for me to like Cruz more than Trump.   

It's interesting to hear you say that, because that's another beef I have with Trump (not, in itself, a deal-killer):  He presents himself as, and is presented as, a hard-core conservative; but--immigrant rhetoric aside--he's actually pretty centrist and sometimes even a little to the left.  That, in itself, is par for the political course--but in this case, Trump's failures and blunders (which I believe will be both inevitable and legion) will all be ascribed to his (non-existent) conservatism.

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, zil said:

Actually, my experience is that things will be a bit different.  I base this on what I observed while working (as a contract employee for a US company) at the US Embassy in Moscow, Russia for three years in the early 1990s (how's that for blowing my anonymity?).

1) There will be die-hard believers who tolerate their miserable existence (they go to work and do a mediocre job - cuz doing better would look bad and doing worse would be unpatriotic; they live in dingy conditions, their government is totally corrupt - though they may not believe this; etc.).  They think anyone who is better off than them is a criminal and thief.  They'll stand in line at the government stores and complain that it's some evil person's fault when supplies run out before they get to the front of the line, but they won't do anything about it - because that's the government's job. This will be the majority.

2) There will be those who recognize the stupidity of it all and want something better, so they turn to "crime" to get better things: they'll work at the auto-manufacturing plant (for example) and steal pieces of a car one at a time until they can assemble it for themselves or for sale (cuz the only other way to get a car is connections or other corruption).  They'll work _hard_ (a cardinal sin in the communist world - you don't work harder, you don't work less, you work exactly as you are expected - least common denominator stuff); they'll find things, make things, sell things that you can't get anywhere except the black market.  There will be comparatively few of these people.

3) There will be those (just like in our own country) who lust for power, they want to be part of the elite.  They will do anything to be part of the elite.  They will either rise in government (usually through abuse of power and brutality, sometimes through other crimes, never honestly); or they will become a crime boss (often using force to get control over the people in #2 above).  These people will use their power and influence to live _far_ above all the rest of the population.

4) There will be the few who see and try to fight the evil with integrity.  They may excel at their work (they'll be hated by co-workers and punished by "superiors").  They may try to make political changes (they'll be thrown in prisons, insane asylums (trust me, death would be better than these places), or gulags).

It will end when the economic power of crime takes over the controlling power of government...

So, we're now where the Soviets were during their collapse.  Interesting.

Edited March 11, 2016 by Guest

[Just_A_Guy]

Don't lecture me about socialism: I lived through it.

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Don't lecture me about socialism: I lived through it.

One of the videos that came up on that page were interviews with Sanders supporters. (cue the Valley Girl accent) "I don't really think that capitalism has, like, worked really well for a lot of people.  So, like, if you take a look at countries in, like, Europe, we'll find that their statistics are, like, a whole lot better than what we see here."

What statistics?  More government handouts?  Yup, you win.

[zil]

40 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

So, we're now where the Soviets were during their collapse.  Interesting.

We are nowhere near it!  Yes, we have corruption beyond anyone's knowing (except those in it), and we have lots of other problems, but we are nowhere near as bad off as the average Russian was when I was there.

[zil]

27 minutes ago, zil said:

We are nowhere near it!  Yes, we have corruption beyond anyone's knowing (except those in it), and we have lots of other problems, but we are nowhere near as bad off as the average Russian was when I was there.

That doesn't mean we aren't going in the wrong direction - we are, and we should turn around and run in the other.

[Guest]

44 minutes ago, zil said:

We are nowhere near it!  Yes, we have corruption beyond anyone's knowing (except those in it), and we have lots of other problems, but we are nowhere near as bad off as the average Russian was when I was there.

I was partially facetious. But only partially.

[Jojo Bags]

2 hours ago, Vort said:

Sanders is an idiot. Maybe a friendly enough man, I don't know, but terrifyingly stupid.

Talk about an understatement.  He makes a rock look like Albert Einstein.

[zil]

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Don't lecture me about socialism: I lived through it.

My favorite bit was when he described the number of hits he got on facebook as usually reserved for "pop stars and kitten videos".  Which just shows how far gone we are - that posts about pop stars would get as many hits as those about things that are actually worthwhile...

[Guest Godless]

58 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

One of the videos that came up on that page were interviews with Sanders supporters. (cue the Valley Girl accent) "I don't really think that capitalism has, like, worked really well for a lot of people.  So, like, if you take a look at countries in, like, Europe, we'll find that their statistics are, like, a whole lot better than what we see here."

What statistics?  More government handouts?  Yup, you win.

 

I have two questions for both the conservatives and the "valley girl".

1. Do capitalism and democratic socialism have to be mutually exclusive? Even in a Sanders administration, I don't see the US coming close to the Scandinavian model. I think capitalism can easily survive the watered-down socialism that we would see in such a scenario. 

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

[NeedleinA]

Geezzzzzz! Why can't Superman run for president? This feels hopeless sometimes. Our options are Curly, Larry or Moe. We all seem to be talking about who is the least worse of the worst. ughhhh, "Calgon! Take me away!"

Edited March 11, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Jojo Bags]

8 hours ago, Godless said:

Before this thread is deleted for the obvious reasons, I just want to say that there is an ocean of differences between communism and democratic socialism. 

Communism is nothing more than authoritarian socialism.  Believing in democratic socialism or full on socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant.  No matter how tame, it has been condemned by church leaders from the very beginning.  The one thing the communists do after taking over is to shoot the socialists for not being tough enough.  Nothing good can come from any form of socialism, or from participating, however unknowingly, by accepting the fruits of socialism.  Food stamps, WIC, SSDI, Medcaid, Medicare, Obamacare (subsidized), PELL grants, etc., and any form of corporate welfare are all aspects of socialism, and all are a part of Satan's plan.

I did some checking and found that a large number of BYU and BYU-I students are on Medicaid. http://archive.sltrib.com/story.php?ref=/sltrib/home/51435483-76/medicaid-health-student-students.html.csp  If you qualify for Medicaid, you also qualify for food stamps.  What blows me away is that at BYU, there is an organization that helps kids there get on food stamps.  It isn't sponsored by the Church, but there nonetheless.  That absolutely blows me away.  I thought about it and realized that it is part of the "not being commanded in all things" part of the Church where you should be looking this up for yourself.  I think this is where a great many Saints will be part of the five foolish virgins because they were deceived by the craftiness of men.

What these Latter-day Saints don't seem to understand is that accepting government handouts is accepting something they did not earn.  Someone else had to pay for their benefits, which is completely against the principle of work and eating bread by the sweat of your brow.

'The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.' Margaret Thatcher

[zil]

24 minutes ago, NeedleinA said:

Geezzzzzz! Why can't Superman run for president? This feels hopeless sometimes. Our options are Curly, Larry or Moe. We all seem to be talking about who is the least worse of the worse. ughhhh, "Calgon! Take me away!"

So, Needle, which of these political systems would you like Calgon to take you to?

FEUDALISM: You have two cows. Your lord takes some of the milk.

PURE SOCIALISM: You have two cows. The government takes them and puts them in a barn with everyone else's cows. You have to take care of all the cows. The government gives you a glass of milk.

BUREAUCRATIC SOCIALISM: You have two cows, which are cared for by ex-chicken-farmers. You have to take care of the chickens the government took from the chicken farmers. The government gives you as much milk and eggs as the regulations say you should need.

FASCISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, hires you to take care of them, and sells you the milk.

NAZIISM: You have two cows. One of them denounces the other for "Non-Aryan Ruminations".

STALINISM: You once had two cows but nobody seems to know where they are now.

PURE COMMUNISM: You share two cows with your neighbors. You and your neighbors bicker about who has the most "ability" and who has the most "need". Meanwhile, no one works, no one gets any milk, and the cows drop dead of starvation.

RUSSIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the black market.

CHINESE COMMUNISM: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell it on the open market.

PERESTROIKA: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the Mafia takes all the milk. You steal back as much milk as you can and sell to the Chinese government.

GLASNOST: You have two cows. They emigrate to Israel.

CAMBODIAN COMMUNISM: You have two cows. The government takes both and shoots you.

CAMBODIAN DICTATORSHIP: You have two cows. The government takes both and drafts you.

PURE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors tell you who gets the milk.

REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY: You have two cows. Your neighbors pick someone to tell you who gets the milk.

PURE ANARCHY: You have two cows. Either you sell the milk at a fair price or your neighbors will try to take the cows and kill you.

BUREAUCRACY: You have two cows. At first the government regulates what you can feed them and when you can milk them. Then it pays you not to milk them. Then it pays you not to feed them. Then it shoots the cows to keep them from starving. Then the government requires you to fill out forms accounting for the missing cows.

NEW-DEALISM: You have two cows. The government takes both, shoots one, milks the other and pours the milk down the drain.

MCCARTHYISM: You have two cows. The government investigates you for "Animal Husbandry".

REGULATED CAPITALISM: You don't have any cows. The bank will not lend you money to buy cows, because you don't have any cows to put up as collateral.

FREE CAPITALISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull.

SURREALISM: You have two giraffes. The government requires you to take harmonica lessons.

LBJ NEW SOCIETY: You don't have any cows. The government gives you a lot of bull.

REAGANOMICS: You have two cows. You have to take care of them, but the government milks them and takes the milk. Anything that trickles down onto the barn floor is yours.

CLINTON TOWN MEETING: You have two cows. One of them is actually quite attractive.

[Guest Godless]

34 minutes ago, Jojo Bags said:

Communism is nothing more than authoritarian socialism.  Believing in democratic socialism or full on socialism is like being just a little bit pregnant.  No matter how tame, it has been condemned by church leaders from the very beginning.  The one thing the communists do after taking over is to shoot the socialists for not being tough enough.  Nothing good can come from any form of socialism, or from participating, however unknowingly, by accepting the fruits of socialism.  Food stamps, WIC, SSDI, Medcaid, Medicare, Obamacare (subsidized), PELL grants, etc., and any form of corporate welfare are all aspects of socialism, and all are a part of Satan's plan.

 

In case you aren't aware, it's 100% possible to have a full-time job and still qualify for some or all of those benefits. I used a PELL grant (in addition to the GI Bill) to help me pay for a semester of college classes while I also was working full-time. My wife qualified for Medicaid when she was pregnant with our son, even though we were both working full-time. As a child, my (VERY conservative LDS) parents used the WIC program for a couple years to help put food on the table. My dad was in the Air Force (active duty) at the time. What part of "Satan's plan" involves giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own?

Edited March 11, 2016 by Godless

[Jojo Bags]

33 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

I have two questions for both the conservatives and the "valley girl".

1. Do capitalism and democratic socialism have to be mutually exclusive? Even in a Sanders administration, I don't see the US coming close to the Scandinavian model. I think capitalism can easily survive the watered-down socialism that we would see in such a scenario. 

Yes, they must remain exclusive.  The true form of a free market is that everyone deal fairly with each other.  That isn't the case now, but will be after the Savior returns.  Socialism is all about taking money from one person by threat of force, at the barrel of a gun, and giving it to someone else.  Can you tell me how that is "fair?"  That is called theft, even though a government does it.  Just because something is "legal" does not make it moral or right.  Socialism in any form is bad.  It creates a welfare class that does not believe in working for their living and goes against the principle of work.

Quote

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

Let me reiterate my first answer.  Taxation is nothing more than taking the property of another person by threat of force, at the barrel of a gun.  Try and not pay your taxes and see what happens.  Men with guns will put you in jail.  All socialism does is forcibly take money earned by another person and give it to someone else who has not earned it.  Robin Hood was one of the first popular socialists.  He stole from the rich to give to the poor.  That's a wonderful looking picture, but in the end, Robin Hood was just a thief. 

Nothing good will ever come of socialism.  It is Satan's pre-existent plan repackaged here on earth.

[NeedleinA]

31 minutes ago, zil said:

So, Needle, which of these political systems would you like Calgon to take you to?

SUPERMANISM: You have two cows. You sell one and buy a bull. Breed them and produce all the cows (ribeye, milk, cheese) you like. Sell off your excess. Pay a fair tax and get left alone to repeat the cycle again and again. Someone messes with your cows and Superman's eyes heat up nice and toasty like!

Edited March 11, 2016 by NeedleinA

[Jojo Bags]

9 minutes ago, Godless said:

 

In case you aren't aware, it's 100% possible to have a full-time job and still qualify for some or all of those benefits. I used a PELL grant (in addition to the GI Bill) to help me pay for a semester of college classes while I also was working full-time. My wife qualified for Medicaid when she was pregnant with our son, even though we were both working full-time. As a child, my (VERY conservative LDS) parents used the WIC program for a couple years to help put food on the table. My dad was in the Air Force (active duty) at the time. What part of "Satan's plan" involves giving a little extra help to those who are doing everything they can to get by on their own?

The fruits of socialism have always been condemned by the Church from the very beginning.  If any Latter-day Saint participates in it no matter how good and active they may be, that is their problem.  They only condemn themselves because they did not gain knowledge.  God's plan involves people helping other people voluntarily, without coercion.  Satan's plan was that every one would make it no matter what.

Quote

Satan’s plan required one of two things: Either the compulsion of the mind, the spirit, the intelligence of man, or else saving men in sin. I question whether the intelligence of man can be compelled. Certainly men cannot be saved in sin, because the laws of salvation and exaltation are founded in righteousness, not in sin” (J. Reuben Clark Jr., in Conference Report, Oct. 1949, 193).

Socialism is the same thing.  We will be taken care of no matter what happens in life.  The Cloward-Piven aspect of socialism guarantees a job and a basic income for all, no matter if they work or not.  Socialist Christianity guarantees that you will return to God, no matter what.

Socialism is wrong, no matter what.

[NeuroTypical]

Donald Trump will win the presidency, despite the fact that almost every single American voter actively campaigns against him (on Facebook at least).

President Trump will do a bunch of stuff that you'll hate and I'll like. He'll do a bunch of stuff that you'll like and I'll hate. And then he'll do one or two things that the entire world hates. People will cross aisles and form new alliances in order to stop it, but some of it will happen anyway.

People will start drawing analogies with Nixon. Some folks will try to make the best of it, and you'll hear the old phrase resurrected "Yeah, he's a [beep], but he's our [beep]." In Washington, Pro Trump liberals will suddenly remember things like Nixon ending the war in VietNam. Anti Trump conservatives will openly rebel in every way feasible, from impeachment, to attempting a constitutional convention.

I predict the Trump presidency will end it's second term early, but whether by resignation, impeachment, or natural-death-conspiracy-fodder I can't tell. The event will mark a rare coming-together of Americans and the world in a unified shout of "Good riddance". Then our collective attnetion will swing to Lady Gaga's televised live birth - a genderfluid child born pregnant, having won it's first Oscar in-utero, and the world will not speak the name Trump for two decades. Our grandchildren will eventually figure out that he actually saved us all despite all our best efforts to stop him. If we hadn't banded together against him, we never would have been ready for the evil space emperor and his gelatinous armies.

In conclusion - my image file is funny.

[NeuroTypical]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? 

Oh, totally absolutely unequivocally yes, yes, a thousand times yes it's possible to increase tax revenue without raising taxes.  This was a rhetorical question or a joke, right?  

[LeSellers]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

9 minutes ago, NeuroTypical said:

Oh, totally absolutely unequivocally yes, yes, a thousand times yes it's possible to increase tax revenue without raising taxes.  This was a rhetorical question or a joke, right?  

Not only, possible, it's been done. Not once, but multiple times.

This assumes we're talking about the income tax (although it's true about others, as well). When Kennedy lowered tax rates, tax revenues rose dramatically. The same happened under Reagan, and a few other times. A few, because it's only been done a few times.

The adage is true: if you tax it, you'll have less of it: income taxes drive down incomes; if you subsidize it, you'll get more of it: subsidized ba$tardy gives us more ba$tards.

Lehi

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, Godless said:

 

I have two questions for both the conservatives and the "valley girl".

1. Do capitalism and democratic socialism have to be mutually exclusive? Even in a Sanders administration, I don't see the US coming close to the Scandinavian model. I think capitalism can easily survive the watered-down socialism that we would see in such a scenario. 

2. Is it possible to increase tax revenue without significantly raising taxes? If I understand Sanders' plan correctly (and it's possible that I don't, I'm not an expert in these things), his plan is more about closing loopholes in the tax code and decreasing corporate welfare than raising taxes. I understand that the result of this would result in corporations and the wealthy paying more taxes, but only because they're not cheating the system anymore.

1.  In the short term, perhaps not.  In the long term, I think the answer is "yes"; for a couple of reasons. First, as I hinted earlier--at some point, people start to realize that work is a sucker's game since you're going to get yours whether you work or not--and as they put away their patriotic or religious or moral scruples, your economy becomes a downward spiral.  It's not necessarily the policies so much as the attitudes that the policies create, which can last for generations after the offending policies themselves have been revoked.

And second (somewhat related to the first), once you enshrine a mentality that the needs of "the many" (as defined by the powerful, of course) outweigh the liberties of the few--well, that's going to spill over into other aspects of civic life.

2.  That's where the Laffer Curve comes in.  I think (just intuitively; I can't back this up) that we may be pretty near that sweet spot where we aren't going to see much more revenue via tax cuts.  But I don't think it would take much in the way of tax increases (whether simply "closing loopholes", or whether actual rate increases) to undermine economic growth, either.  To me, the most pressing reason for tax reform at the moment is to make the code comprehensible and to reduce costs of compliance.

[zil]

20 minutes ago, LeSellers said:

The adage is true: if you tax it, you'll have less of it

Which is why I'm opposed to all forms of tax except retail sales tax. At the end of the day, the individual pays all taxes anyway (either directly or because the cost of taxes is passed on to him), so cut the bureaucratic nonsense, make it all transparent, and charge just this one tax - yes, the tax amount would be far higher than the item's price, but it already is.  Plus we can fire lots of people who work in tax collection and payment and let them go do something productive.  (I would even say that no one should pay taxes to the feds except the state - and only one entity collects the taxes - maybe it's the city or county or state, but nothing larger than that.)  Done correctly, costs of government, business, and life should all go down purely because it's simpler to manage.

Of course, it'll never happen, because complexity is far easier to corrupt than simplicity; and government loses a lot of its power when things are transparent and simple.

[NeuroTypical]

I think the first Pres Bush did it too.  He lowered the capital gains rate, and then the government sat back and raked in the huge wall of tax revenue as everybody sold their stocks and paid capital gains on their profits.

Hey government: wanna make a few hundred billion bucks?  Cut the tax rate for a US-based company to bring home foreign profits.   The US is full of companies who would gladly bring cash home if the taxes to do so were halved.

See, Trump knows all this.  He may be everything else he is, but he knows this stuff.