A Day In The Life Of Joe Republican

[SnakeRat]

First off its not a sig line, it is the source of this tongue in cheek little article.

Its true that many conservatives today benefit from union membership. This is exactly the point.
Historically communists and socialists led the battle for the working man.


I am a student and haven't payed much tax to speak of in my 21 yrs. When the government starts taking a big cut out of my wallet, perhaps I will change my tune.

[MMMMMM]

"Historically communists and socialists led the battle for the working man."

I don't even believe this. They said they did but really they didn't. Communism was just another way for the political elite to oppress and control the masses. Socialism, while purporting to look out for the working man, really lowers the overall average living standard, so while under socialism Joe's income might not be so far away from Dave's, they are both earning less.

Winston Churchill put it well: "The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing or blessings; the inherent virtue of socialism is the equal sharing of miseries".

I for one would rather share blessings unequally than share miseries equally. When you get older you will probably realize that so much of the socio-economic stuff you are now learning is a crock, and that Communism is the biggest crock ever invented. Its nephew, Socialism, is a crock overall too, but at least it is not unadulterated nonsense in every last respect as is the uncle.

Safety standards are indeed important. Labor unions aren't really very important today, in my opinion, although they may once have been so.

Social security provides the average contributor with a 1% lifetime rate of return on investment. Pretty crapy, eh? It was a Ponzi scheme to begin with, and the miserly rate of return has caused many retirees to live pinched economic existences, whereas if they had instead been able to invest that money taken from their paychecks each week for Social szecurity, they would now be far better off. Social Security contributions have helped to keep many people poor. Heck the average Joe would have been much better off just putting 7.5% of his paycheck every week in a bank savings account drawing interest and letting it compound for 40 years, rather than being forced to "invest" it in Social Security.

Class warfare speech is becoming so much drivel nowadays, as continual globalization and the breaking down of barriers renders moot many of the issues of yesteryear.

[Cyrus]

"Communists and socialists said they led the battle for the working man but really they didn't. Communism was just another way for the political elite to oppress and control the masses."

In any country you would care to mention where the communists did not assume power (that would include a pretty BIG chunk of the world, as you should know), what the original poster wrote is, of course, correct. And you are, of course, wrong. This is not a matter for yet another of the long, drawn-out debates you are so fond of. It's a matter of historical record.

And you are confusing post-victory communists (who then formed those political elites, dummy!) with communists/socialists in the perennial opposition, who, yes, fought for the working man.

America, mind you, has a long and distinguished record of working class struggles. If you ever get a chance to get your head out of your behind (say when the time comes to vote!), you could do worse than look up a useful book or two on the subject.

My recommendation would be this little title. Easy reading too.

"Safety standards are indeed important."

Hah. and who forced these standards through?

(Don’t answer "the legislature", baby, it's a trick question!)

"Labour unions aren't really very important today, in my opinion, although they may once have been so."

You are wrong about today -- and of course you are right about "once". Note that if you are right about unions having been useful at other times, and since all fighting labour unions were socialist by nature, this contradicts your statement (in the same post [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]) that socialists never did anything for the working man!

"Social Security contributions have helped to keep many people poor. Heck the average Joe would have been much better off just putting 7.5% of his paycheck every week in a bank savings account drawing interest and letting it compound for 40 years, rather than being forced to "invest" it in Social Security."

The issue of Social Security should be viewed in he context of human behaviour. People, in general, behave far, far differently than your little worldview would have it. Yes, the math are precisely as you put it -- but there's a reason for all this.

I would recommend something by Tversky et al here, but I hesitate since you should be reading your History by now...

"Class warfare speech is becoming so much drivel nowadays, as continual globalization and the breaking down of barriers renders moot many of the issues of yesteryear."

If I had a penny for every time an ignoramus has announced the end of the class distinctions and class warfare, I would be ...well, I would be at the same class I am now, but you get my point. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[Bez]

The unions almost destroyed Britain in the '70s. God bless Maggie Thatcher.

[MMMMMM]

Cyrus,

Yes, the Commies have always claimed to be "for the working man"--but that position has always been a sham, in my opinion. What the Commies really wanted all along was Power--pure unmitigated political power backed up with gun barrels. Where they got that power, they abused it most horribly. Where they didn't get it, or are still striving for it, they make the claim that they are doing it "for the people". Yeah right. Leave the people the hell alone, you totalitarian freak bastards.

[vulturesrow]

Id like to see how how Cyrus can gloss over the fact that Communist governments have historically been some of the most violent and oppressive in history. Im sure Chris Alger will jump in with a few plays from the Chomsky playbook.

[nothumb]

I think he's already addressed this. When communists have come into power their governments have generally become oppressive and totalitarian. However, many important labor victories in the US were originally backed by socialists - largely by socialists. That includes the 8-hour workday, weekends, etc.

I think it's fair to criticize hard-line communist governments, and socialism as well (although it has been less destructive and mildly successful in a few situations, though not in the long term) - but to ignore the socialist contribution to the American labor struggle is foolish.

MMMMMM, I like how you presume that any Communist or Socialist who fought for workers' rights was just out to take over the world. Most of them were probably just workers who wanted rights.

NT

[cowboyzfan]

I am very suprised how many whacko left (no offense) poker players there are on this site. I would think that Poker is inherently conservative. It's survival of the fittest right? Do we not read 2+2 books so that we have an "unfair" advantage over the uneducated? Do we not try to use that advantage to take money from their very hands?


I would think an ultra lefty would feel too bad for the opponent and would rather pay him a per diem than take his stack.

[MMMMMM]

"MMMMMM, I like how you presume that any Communist or Socialist who fought for workers' rights was just out to take over the world. Most of them were probably just workers who wanted rights."


Why then couldn't they see that the only way to implement Communism, even if just internally in their own countries, was at the point of a gun? Totalitarianism, I say again.

[Bez]

You like guns too much but your points here are 100% correct.