Jacksonville Jaguars Fan Forums

Quote:Let me add, lest anyone gets their panties in a bunch.... We deserve it because we EARN(ED) it. Period. 

Like times one million!

Quote:We are expected to be able to leave home at a moments notice in case of emergency...we can be recalled at any time on any day if we are home, on the weekend or on leave if an emergency..We can be eating Easter dinner with our family and the phone rings with an order to return to base IMMEDIATELY and deployment within the hour...Kiss your wife and kids good by without knowing where the hell your headed, or for how long...

Exactly. 

Quote:You know that money you use to buy stuff from those good ol' Private Organizations?


It's backed by the Federal Government.  Otherwise it would be totally worthless.  The pieces of paper you own (unless you invest all in gold, and in which case I'm wondering where you shop that lets you pay in gold) and have in the bank would be totally worthless if the federal government weren't operational.  Someone of course has to print that money too.  So you're able to buy stuff thanks to taxpayers who pay for money to be printed.  So you too are paid by socialism (again, unless you are paid in gold)

 

That's fiat currency it has nothing to do with any of this. And if we want to have that conversation I have a very big problem with fiat currency.

 

Quote:Seriously???? We are NOT conditioned to accept handouts from the government. We are conditioned to bust our [BAD WORD REMOVED] to serve this country.

 

As someone stated before, contracts were signed, lives were given over to the government to do with us what they wanted/what was required. In return they pay us (have you seen the pay of an enlisted troop? Not even minimum wage per hour considering we're officially on duty 24/7), feed us (chow hall, MRE's), clothe us (uniforms), house us (barracks, tents, on post housing) and provide healthcare and retirement for a job we do 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. We are expected to be ready 24/7 to be at the military's beck and call because that's how it works. No other job I can think of for the average American comes close. And we will go into harms way to protect this country, whether we or anyone else agrees with the why of it, or not.

 

I agree with most of what you put out on the board but in this you are sorely off base. In so many ways you are off base. Unless you have lived the military life you don't even know the hardship that goes into it for the troops and their families. We deserve every bit of retirement we earned, every bit of that healthcare (which BTW is not entirely how you think it is or you wouldn't consider it socialized), every bit of that VA loan (it's a LOAN we have to pay back- hello), every bit of whatever USAA wants to offer us.

 

I've been both the Soldier and the spouse so I know I speak from both perspectives in that you have no idea of what you're talking about. 

 

Benefits are not synonymous with handout. I said everyone including the military is being conditioned to expect government benefits. Yes they are earned but they are still benefits paid for by the government and taxation. 

 

Quote:WHAT? The Veterans Administration is a socialist program? Do you even know how the system works? After retirement/seperation from the military, the Veteran Affairs Administartion is where the funds come from for health/vision and dental or IF you are near an active military base that has such facilities, you can go there for services...While on active duty, you simply go to your base medical/dental or facility...The problem is the government keeps cutting the budget for the VA

 

The governement does not confiscate food for the sailors at sea...they provide it because when you are out to sea, you have no where to eat but your ship...on military bases, you generally don't have time to run grab something to eat...food is provided because you are paid as a military person 24 hours a day...you are NEVER off from the military...sure you might get a day off from your job, but you are STILL on the military clock...

 

My friend, you really need to investigate what it's like and how the military works before you try to condemn it as being provided for by socialist properties...we get such benefits because we are paid for 24 hours a day 7 days a week 365 days a year but we still are on the clock on days off and on leave...totally different than private sector and those who have never served have no clue what it's "all about

 

Most jobs have benefits, the military benefits used to be the main reason people joined other than to serve their country...Because of politics our benefits package has shrunk along with our pay...We are provided the benefits, no we are not provided with the benefits, we EARN them...

 

Yea I know how the VA works it's the prime example of socialized medicine. The VA is funded by tax dollars it's one of the most dysfunctional forms of healthcare and it's what Obama-care is going to lead to for everyone. 

 

I said everything provided by government has to be paid for through forced taxation. I'm not arguing the sailors shouldn't be fed, of course and they should be fed the best. I'm not trying to condemn the military or anyone associated with the military I have a profound respect for you guys and what you do. That doesn't however mean we can't have a discussion on the topic. 

 

 

Quote:Let me add, lest anyone gets their panties in a bunch.... We deserve it because we EARN(ED) it. Period. 

 

No one's getting their panties in a wad, we're discussing if some forms of socialism are acceptable and others are not. From what I'd gather in this conversation most are ok with redistribution so long as a service is provided in accordance to the payment. So my question is are you guys ok with doing the same for other government workers, teachers, police, firefighters, trash collectors, IRS, politicians, ect.....

 

If not then it's only selective socialism people are ok with, I'm not sure I agree with that. 

 

That doesn't change my respect or gratification for military members. 

Eric, in your estimation is everything paid for by tax dollars socialist? Our roads, our schools, our courthouses? How else would these things be paid for if not by tax dollars? How would folks who perform a public service (firefighters, police, military) get paid if not by tax dollars? 

 

The only reason the military gets the benefits they do is because they sign their lives away to work a thankless job that only a very small percentage of the country is willing to do for all of the reasons I've already mentioned. So when teachers, firefighters, police, and other folks do the same then they are more than welcome to all the benefits they deserve. Other than that, not so much. I'm not knocking the folks who do those jobs, I have several firefighter friends, a few teacher friends and a few cop friends, and I appreciate what they do. But nothing comes close to what our military and their families sacrifice in the name of freedom for this country. 

 

I'm sorry if I seem super sensitive to this subject but it's extremely personal for me in ways you can't imagine. I don't mind discussion but you can't possibly know what you're saying because you haven't lived it. There's absolutely no comparison between civilian life and military life. At all. So to try to lump it all together in one box is impossible. 

Quote:Eric, in your estimation is everything paid for by tax dollars socialist? Our roads, our schools, our courthouses? How else would these things be paid for if not by tax dollars? How would folks who perform a public service (firefighters, police, military) get paid if not by tax dollars? 

He'll probably mention private companies that can carry out those works instead. I personally don't see anything wrong with a private company operating roads, schools, or courthouses, but people would be expected to pay high fees for access to those services and it would inevitably lead to a high amount of greed and corruption (not that there isn't enough Government corruption already with education, infrastructure, and the judicial system), as those private entities would be more concerned with making a profit than helping out the public.

 

I think that there are a lot of things in this Country that would be better handled by individuals and private entities, and there are some things that should absolutely not be privatized. I.E. Private Military Companies, and Private Prison Companies. The military and prison "industrial complexes".

 

 

I think that there are far left Democrats (who espouse Socialism/Communism), Far right Republicans (who espouse Fascism/Militarism), and extreme Libertarians (who espouse Anarchism), who do exist in this Country all at the same time.

Quote:That's fiat currency it has nothing to do with any of this. And if we want to have that conversation I have a very big problem with fiat currency.

 

 

Benefits are not synonymous with handout. I said everyone including the military is being conditioned to expect government benefits. Yes they are earned but they are still benefits paid for by the government and taxation. 

 

 

Yea I know how the VA works it's the prime example of socialized medicine. The VA is funded by tax dollars it's one of the most dysfunctional forms of healthcare and it's what Obama-care is going to lead to for everyone. 

 

I said everything provided by government has to be paid for through forced taxation. I'm not arguing the sailors shouldn't be fed, of course and they should be fed the best. I'm not trying to condemn the military or anyone associated with the military I have a profound respect for you guys and what you do. That doesn't however mean we can't have a discussion on the topic. 

 

 

 

No one's getting their panties in a wad, we're discussing if some forms of socialism are acceptable and others are not. From what I'd gather in this conversation most are ok with redistribution so long as a service is provided in accordance to the payment. So my question is are you guys ok with doing the same for other government workers, teachers, police, firefighters, trash collectors, IRS, politicians, ect.....

 

If not then it's only selective socialism people are ok with, I'm not sure I agree with that. 

 

That doesn't change my respect or gratification for military members. 

please explain how thing would get paid if not by taxes...especially government entities and services...I'm not so sure you understand what socialism really is...I just read about a dozen different articles on socialism and I can find nowhere that your claim of socialism is even remotely close to accurate

Quote:please explain how thing would get paid if not by taxes...especially government entities and services...I'm not so sure you understand what socialism really is...I just read about a dozen different articles on socialism and I can find nowhere that your claim of socialism is even remotely close to accurate

 

Washington, Monroe, Madison, Hamilton et al would be shocked to know they were Socialists. Hamilton probably would've dueled Eric over the very implication.

Quote:Washington, Monroe, Madison, Hamilton et al would be shocked to know they were Socialists. Hamilton probably would've dueled Eric over the very implication.

Lincoln would have fallen into such a great depression he never would have gone to Ford theater that night...Our whole history would have been changed...Ben Franklin (although not a POTUS), would have been appalled to be called a socialist

Socialism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. The key being the distribution through a central power. 

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

 

So to answer your question, yes anytime government is paying for services it's a form of social policy. Socialism is not a political system, it's an economic platform that counters private sector supply and demand. You're confusing it with communism which is both a political and economic system. Socialism is strictly payment from a central power to individuals for services rendered. 

Quote:Lincoln would have fallen into such a great depression he never would have gone to Ford theater that night...Our whole history would have been changed...Ben Franklin (although not a POTUS), would have been appalled to be called a socialist

 

Lincoln was a tyrant.

Quote:Socialism is from each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution. The key being the distribution through a central power. 

 

http://www.diffen.com/difference/Communism_vs_Socialism

 

So to answer your question, yes anytime government is paying for services it's a form of social policy. Socialism is not a political system, it's an economic platform that counters private sector supply and demand. You're confusing it with communism which is both a political and economic system. Socialism is strictly payment from a central power to individuals for services rendered. 

"Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service—and to a central congress representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy

 

For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market, and forced to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals. It means a classless society that guarantees full democratic rights for all workers."

 



 

ocialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.


"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that!

Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.



 


Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

 

None of this fits into your socialist assertion

 

 

 

Quote:Lincoln was a tyrant.

Oh come on now...Lincoln was a tyrant? you're just looking to start an arguement with that statement

Quote:Why don't you people worry about things that matter, like whether the president sends you overseas to die by the thousands in a war that cannot be won?   What the heck does Obama missing one single salute by mistake have to do with anything?

Welp. Maybe the next POTUS..Rick Perry or Chucklebus Christie can change things like how they salute with their thumbs up their arses.

Really. The wheels coming off the world and the prez didn't salute right. Didn't go to France. Whew. We do have problems.

can't wait to see....the eating of their own young when Christie, Cruz, Paul, Bush, Huckabee, Romney hit the buffet.

Christ..we need a leader who can satisfy everyone. Salute. No wars. Attack ISIS. But no war. Give health car. Eliminate health care. Wipe out terror. No spending though. Close the border. Build a pipeline. Be environmental friendly. Restart the middle class. But no Unions.

Who can that person be? Bush vs Clinton?

Guess it doesn't matter.

Quote:He'll probably mention private companies that can carry out those works instead. I personally don't see anything wrong with a private company operating roads, schools, or courthouses, but people would be expected to pay high fees for access to those services and it would inevitably lead to a high amount of greed and corruption (not that there isn't enough Government corruption already with education, infrastructure, and the judicial system), as those private entities would be more concerned with making a profit than helping out the public.


 

I think that there are a lot of things in this Country that would be better handled by individuals and private entities, and there are some things that should absolutely not be privatized. I.E. Private Military Companies, and Private Prison Companies. The military and prison "industrial complexes".

 

 

I think that there are far left Democrats (who espouse Socialism/Communism), Far right Republicans (who espouse Fascism/Militarism), and extreme Libertarians (who espouse Anarchism), who do exist in this Country all at the same time.

Not to mention the general public screaming about how horrible the education system is, while others harp on how great it is...people would be suing everyone and everything... the road in front of their house has 3 pot holes and the company hasn't fixed them when requested, but they did fix 3 pot holes 3 streets over...It would be a huge mess wiht lawsuits over everything...from school being too easy and not good enough, to too hard and beyond what it should be, to whose roads get fixed first, what counties and residential areas are first in line for  repair, what bridges get refurbished, why JJ's Garbage service got picked to be the county's collector instead of Joe P's...

I thought this thread was about how much the military despises the empty suit that is the CiC, how did we get off onto Eric's faulty definition of Socialism?

Quote:I thought this thread was about how much the military despises the empty suit that is the CiC, how did we get off onto Eric's faulty definition of Socialism?

No telling how it happened...It always happens though

Quote:That's fiat currency it has nothing to do with any of this. And if we want to have that conversation I have a very big problem with fiat currency.

 

 

Benefits are not synonymous with handout. I said everyone including the military is being conditioned to expect government benefits. Yes they are earned but they are still benefits paid for by the government and taxation. 

 

 

Yea I know how the VA works it's the prime example of socialized medicine. The VA is funded by tax dollars it's one of the most dysfunctional forms of healthcare and it's what Obama-care is going to lead to for everyone. 

 

I said everything provided by government has to be paid for through forced taxation. I'm not arguing the sailors shouldn't be fed, of course and they should be fed the best. I'm not trying to condemn the military or anyone associated with the military I have a profound respect for you guys and what you do. That doesn't however mean we can't have a discussion on the topic. 

 

 

 

No one's getting their panties in a wad, we're discussing if some forms of socialism are acceptable and others are not. From what I'd gather in this conversation most are ok with redistribution so long as a service is provided in accordance to the payment. So my question is are you guys ok with doing the same for other government workers, teachers, police, firefighters, trash collectors, IRS, politicians, ect.....

 

If not then it's only selective socialism people are ok with, I'm not sure I agree with that. 

 

That doesn't change my respect or gratification for military members. 

 

 

Ok let us discuss this avenue.  Your local firemen and policemen are in a union.  Do you really want to compare what they get after their term of service is up compared to the military?  No disrespect intended to those civilian institutions but do you really want to compare the two?  Now let us add regular civilians working at the local DMV.  Do they deserve the same consideration?  Also inferred is those that do nothing but get government benefits are on the same plane.  They are not!  These are 3 different discussions.  Folks on the dole of the government teat should not be compared with those that work for the government.  Folks that work for the government should not be compared with those that enlist in the US Military.

 

It is not the same discussion in any of the three cases.  Not all socialism (as you state it) is the same.  

Quote:"Socialism is the collective ownership by all the people of the factories, mills, mines, railroads, land and all other instruments of production.

Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions. In each workplace, the rank and file will elect whatever committees or representatives are needed to facilitate production. Within each shop or office division of a plant, the rank and file will participate directly in formulating and implementing all plans necessary for efficient operations.

Besides electing all necessary shop officers, the workers will also elect representatives to a local and national council of their industry or service—and to a central congress representing all the industries and services. This all-industrial congress will plan and coordinate production in all areas of the economy

 

For individuals, socialism means an end to economic insecurity and exploitation. It means workers cease to be commodities bought and sold on the labor market, and forced to work as appendages to tools owned by someone else. It means a chance to develop all individual capacities and potentials within a free community of free individuals. It means a classless society that guarantees full democratic rights for all workers."

 



 

ocialism does not mean government or state ownership. It does not mean a closed party-run system without democratic rights. Those things are the very opposite of socialism.


"Socialism," as the American Socialist Daniel De Leon defined it, "is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end. That is socialism, nothing short of that." And we might add, nothing more than that!

Remember: If it does not fit this description, it is not socialism—no matter who says different. Those who claim that socialism existed and failed in places like Russia and China simply do not know the facts.

Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time.



 


Socialism has never existed. It did not exist in the old U.S.S.R., and it does not exist in China. Socialism will be a society in which the things we need to live, work and control our own lives—the industries, services and natural resources—are collectively owned by all the people, and in which the democratic organization of the people within the industries and services is the government. Socialism means that government of the people, for the people and by the people will become a reality for the first time. http://www.slp.org/what_is.htm

 

None of this fits into your socialist assertion

 

That's crap socialism has never been tried. The entire article is written by socialist explaining why everywhere it's been used even in moderation it's a total mess and complete failure.

 

The difference between communism and socialism when it all boils down is the distribution from central power. In communism it's based upon need in socialism it's based upon contribution. 

Quote:Oh come on now...Lincoln was a tyrant? you're just looking to start an arguement with that statement

 

We can start another thread on it, but a man that would go to war to force people not to leave his government and then enlist foreign nationals to enforce his government, I'd consider that pretty tyrant like. 

Quote:Not to mention the general public screaming about how horrible the education system is, while others harp on how great it is...people would be suing everyone and everything... the road in front of their house has 3 pot holes and the company hasn't fixed them when requested, but they did fix 3 pot holes 3 streets over...It would be a huge mess wiht lawsuits over everything...from school being too easy and not good enough, to too hard and beyond what it should be, to whose roads get fixed first, what counties and residential areas are first in line for  repair, what bridges get refurbished, why JJ's Garbage service got picked to be the county's collector instead of Joe P's...

 

Actually if a private company fails to fix pot holes as in your example they would lose the contracts of the people in that area to maintain the roads. As for education almost anything would be better then what we have today.