Why we need Socialism in America, in one picture.

[oggbashan]

That's a part of socialism. Otherwise the private market would be the solution for these indolent bastards*


* sarcasm, of course. Conservatives call all homeless people that.

Locally there was a major fire in an apartment block less than 10 years old. 15 families, most owning/buying their own apartments, became homeless.

All are now rehoused at public expense, most of which will be repaid by their home insurers.

The apartment block will be rebuilt by next Spring.

None of the 15 families were 'indolent bastards'.

Many of the homeless in the UK are homeless because private landlords are increasing the rental charges on short-term lease renewal beyond the family's ability to pay, and refusing an extension to the current lease.

Private rental rates are increasing locally at 15% a year. Pay rates are rising less than 1%. Something's got to give.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Locally there was a major fire in an apartment block less than 10 years old. 15 families, most owning/buying their own apartments, became homeless.

All are now rehoused at public expense, most of which will be repaid by their home insurers.

The apartment block will be rebuilt by next Spring.

None of the 15 families were 'indolent bastards'.

Many of the homeless in the UK are homeless because private landlords are increasing the rental charges on short-term lease renewal beyond the family's ability to pay, and refusing an extension to the current lease.

Private rental rates are increasing locally at 15% a year. Pay rates are rising less than 1%. Something's got to give.

I know these people aren't indolent, I was just mocking Conservative rhetoric.

Again, with those rising rents, you have shown where your own country needs the socialist policies that they have.

 

[oggbashan]

I know these people aren't indolent, I was just mocking Conservative rhetoric.

Again, with those rising rents, you have shown where your own country needs the socialist policies that they have.

Maybe - but the costs fall on people like me in rising Council taxes.

It was always thus since Queen Elizabeth the First introduced a Poor Law. Local property owners have had to pay basic maintenance for the unemployed poor of their community since then. If there was an agricultural recession with farm workers unemployed, the farm owners and other tradesmen had to pay more to support the unemployed and their families.

 

[hssh345Alt]

Hei, LJ,
I read one of your earlier posts - about the importance of advocacy for male african-americans who are at a disadvantage.
And that made me remember one of Brian Stevenson's talks.(We need to talk about injustice then Just Mercy) .You probably know of him already (lawyer who found his calling through trying to exhonerate innocent death row inmates ). I only came by one of his talks by accident but they struck an emotional cord - a unique experience ...
What did you think of him ?

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=brian stevenson&sm=3

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Maybe - but the costs fall on people like me in rising Council taxes.

It was always thus since Queen Elizabeth the First introduced a Poor Law. Local property owners have had to pay basic maintenance for the unemployed poor of their community since then. If there was an agricultural recession with farm workers unemployed, the farm owners and other tradesmen had to pay more to support the unemployed and their families.

I pay some serious taxes myself. Doesn't bother me too much.

You know, JK Rowling had something to say about paying taxes in England. She was on welfare when she wrote Harry Potter. When she became a billionaire she opted to stay in England rather than take her money and flee. Why?

http://www.businessinsider.com/jk-rowling-on-high-taxes-2012-9

I chose to remain a domiciled taxpayer for a couple of reasons. The main one was that I wanted my children to grow up where I grew up, to have proper roots in a culture as old and magnificent as Britain’s; to be citizens, with everything that implies, of a real country, not free-floating ex-pats, living in the limbo of some tax haven and associating only with the children of similarly greedy tax exiles.

A second reason, however, was that I am indebted to the British welfare state; the very one that Mr Cameron would like to replace with charity handouts. When my life hit rock bottom, that safety net, threadbare though it had become under John Major’s Government, was there to break the fall. I cannot help feeling, therefore, that it would have been contemptible to scarper for the West Indies at the first sniff of a seven-figure royalty cheque. This, if you like, is my notion of patriotism.

Now that's what I call the neo cortex in action.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

Hei, LJ,
I read one of your earlier posts - about the importance of advocacy for male african-americans who are at a disadvantage.
And that made me remember one of Brian Stevenson's talks.(We need to talk about injustice then Just Mercy) .You probably know of him already (lawyer who found his calling through trying to exhonerate innocent death row inmates ). I only came by one of his talks by accident but they struck an emotional cord - a unique experience ...
What did you think of him ?

https://m.youtube.com/results?q=brian stevenson&sm=3

Wow, that's a lot of videos... can I get back to you on that?

 

[Pairaclities]

A young woman was about to finish her first year of college. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very liberal, and among other liberal ideals, was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs, in other words redistribution of wealth.

She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch conservative, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had participated in, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harbored an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.

One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.

The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth and she indicated so to her father.

He responded by asking how she was doing in school.

Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 4.0 GPA, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many college friends because she spent all her time studying.

Her father listened and then asked, "How is your friend Audrey doing?"

She replied, "Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 2.0 GPA. She is so popular on campus; college for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over."

Her father asked his daughter, "Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 1.0 off your GPA and give it to your friend who only has a 2.0. That way you will both have a 3.0 GPA and certainly that would be a fair and equal distribution of GPA."

The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, "That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!"

The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, "Welcome to the conservative side of the fence."

If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!

If a conservative doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one. If a liberal doesn't like guns, he wants all guns outlawed.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.

If a conservative is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation. A liberal wonders who is going to take care of him..

If a conservative doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels. Liberals demand that those they don't like be shut down.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church. A liberal non-believer wants any mention of God and Jesus silenced.


If a conservative decides he needs health care, he goes about shopping for it, or may choose a job that provides it. A liberal demands that the rest of us pay for his.

If a conservative reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh. A liberal will delete it because he's "offended."

 

[Pairaclities]

Marxism has never been applied in a country.

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."

Why not?

Because it doesn't work in practice. The leaders of any country want more than the rewards paid to the proletariat, usually much more. The rich tend to maintain their wealth because they still have power or can buy or bribe whatever government is in place.

Even in the French Revolution when Aristocrats were being guillotined, much of their wealth was exported to England, Austria and elsewhere. Individuals might have died. Their wealth didn't.

Even that French wealth in land and property that was confiscated by the government was then sold at reduced prices to the government's friends and supporters until they too faced the guillotine and new rich people took their place, buying at cheap rates from the government.

People want rewards for their skills, their knowledge, their investment. They want more rewards than the basic minimum otherwise why should they bother to exert themselves?

Revolutions are made by the middle classes, the bourgeoisie, if they feel oppressed or exploited by the governing classes. The bourgeoisie have the organisational skills and the resources. Thr proletariat are just cannon fodder for the revolution's leaders and once the revolution is over, the proletariat are still at the bottom of the heap.

"The workers have nothing to lose in this (revolution) but their chains. They have a world to gain."

Sorry Marx. History demonstrates that the workers just end up with new chains. The bourgeois win every time, and a different set of rich people end up with the power. Or even the same set of rich people with new titles.

Exactly Ogg, this is the reality of the social order no matter the ideology, capitalist or otherwise.
The cash flow is just applied slightly differently in each case, either direct theft of government resources to personal fortune or program theft of those resources to personal fortune.
The government connections are similar. Someone will always profit (steal) and make himself rich in every "civilized" society.