Amerika up shitz creek

[mistermack]

A lot of the cash goes in health insurance.

And that's the lucky ones.

[Seth]

Nothing to do with socialism. Just that most people cannot postpone gratification enough to save money.

It's everything to do with socialism. Generations of Americans have been carefully indoctrinated into the socialist mindset that everybody is supposed to get everything everybody else has and that it's the government's job to make sure they get all that. One of the ways the government builds this debt trap is by, for example, creating Freddy and Fannie and making banking laws that encourage poor people with bad credit to buy houses they can't afford by guaranteeing that the taxpayers will protect the banks against defaults, which is what caused the 2008/2009 housing meltdown. The whole purpose of that program was to make poor people, and even middle class people more and more dependent on government for their very survival so that they will vote for even more socialist playing-field leveling.

It's an insidious socialist plot that got us where we are today. A very deliberate and carefully calculated one.

It's not socialism, Seth. It's capitalism. As record levels of personal debt show.

Nope. It's socialist manipulation of capitalism using government meddling in markets to artificially create middle-class and low-income debt by "bailing out" financial institutions that loan money to people who cannot pay it back. These financial institutions are induced to make these loans by the (socialist) component of government which both mandates that they loan money to the economically disadvantaged in order to avoid prosecution for "discrimination" and tells the financial institution that it will secure that debt and pay, using taxpayer money, any bad debts that (obviously) follow that entirely Marxist Progressive program of "leveling the playing field for minorities and the poor."

In other words, the Marxist Progressive element of government is forcing banks to entice people who can never hope to pay back loans into going into debt in order to control their votes while skewing the risk analysis that lenders are supposed to use in determining who is credit worthy and who is not by imposing socialist laws that make it illegal to deny loans to obviously credit-unworthy individuals merely because they are minorities.

Without that government manipulation, lenders would NEVER lend money to people they know full well are incapable of paying it back, as they did for hundreds if not thousands of years in the past.

Socialism has turned consumer lending into a tool of proletarian income-leveling and control.

[Seth]

Nothing to do with socialism. Just that most people cannot postpone gratification enough to save money.

It's everything to do with socialism. Generations of Americans have been carefully indoctrinated into the socialist mindset that everybody is supposed to get everything everybody else has and that it's the government's job to make sure they get all that. One of the ways the government builds this debt trap is by, for example, creating Freddy and Fannie and making banking laws that encourage poor people with bad credit to buy houses they can't afford by guaranteeing that the taxpayers will protect the banks against defaults, which is what caused the 2008/2009 housing meltdown. The whole purpose of that program was to make poor people, and even middle class people more and more dependent on government for their very survival so that they will vote for even more socialist playing-field leveling.

It's an insidious socialist plot that got us where we are today. A very deliberate and carefully calculated one.

Au contraire. This mindless consumerism and desire for the latest material goods is a direct result of a capitalist society with little else to balance it. The unending refrain from modern advertising is buy, buy, buy, and if a society has little other values of real significance, then people will automatically be drawn to spend more and more and more...

They can't buy on credit if they don't have credit. They only have credit because the government has pressured the industry into offering credit to the credit-unworthy both by threatening to prosecute them for "discrimination" (red-lining) and by guaranteeing bad loans using taxpayer money. That's socialism's plan to ensnare the poor in a web of debt that allows socialists to manipulate their votes.

[JimC]

Nothing to do with socialism. Just that most people cannot postpone gratification enough to save money.

It's everything to do with socialism. Generations of Americans have been carefully indoctrinated into the socialist mindset that everybody is supposed to get everything everybody else has and that it's the government's job to make sure they get all that. One of the ways the government builds this debt trap is by, for example, creating Freddy and Fannie and making banking laws that encourage poor people with bad credit to buy houses they can't afford by guaranteeing that the taxpayers will protect the banks against defaults, which is what caused the 2008/2009 housing meltdown. The whole purpose of that program was to make poor people, and even middle class people more and more dependent on government for their very survival so that they will vote for even more socialist playing-field leveling.

It's an insidious socialist plot that got us where we are today. A very deliberate and carefully calculated one.

Au contraire. This mindless consumerism and desire for the latest material goods is a direct result of a capitalist society with little else to balance it. The unending refrain from modern advertising is buy, buy, buy, and if a society has little other values of real significance, then people will automatically be drawn to spend more and more and more...

They can't buy on credit if they don't have credit. They only have credit because the government has pressured the industry into offering credit to the credit-unworthy both by threatening to prosecute them for "discrimination" (red-lining) and by guaranteeing bad loans using taxpayer money. That's socialism's plan to ensnare the poor in a web of debt that allows socialists to manipulate their votes.

There may be issues with how easily credit is made available, and in your country, perhaps part of that is poor government decisions. However, lenders are themselves bound up in the consumerist ethic, and will themselves contribute to the way people take on excessive debt in any economy. However, whatever regulations exist or don't exist to exert control on lending, the root motivation for excess borrowing remains exactly as I stated it; consumerist passions, deliberately stoked by the engine room of capitalism, the advertising industry.

[Seth]

Nothing to do with socialism. Just that most people cannot postpone gratification enough to save money.

It's everything to do with socialism. Generations of Americans have been carefully indoctrinated into the socialist mindset that everybody is supposed to get everything everybody else has and that it's the government's job to make sure they get all that. One of the ways the government builds this debt trap is by, for example, creating Freddy and Fannie and making banking laws that encourage poor people with bad credit to buy houses they can't afford by guaranteeing that the taxpayers will protect the banks against defaults, which is what caused the 2008/2009 housing meltdown. The whole purpose of that program was to make poor people, and even middle class people more and more dependent on government for their very survival so that they will vote for even more socialist playing-field leveling.

It's an insidious socialist plot that got us where we are today. A very deliberate and carefully calculated one.

Au contraire. This mindless consumerism and desire for the latest material goods is a direct result of a capitalist society with little else to balance it. The unending refrain from modern advertising is buy, buy, buy, and if a society has little other values of real significance, then people will automatically be drawn to spend more and more and more...

They can't buy on credit if they don't have credit. They only have credit because the government has pressured the industry into offering credit to the credit-unworthy both by threatening to prosecute them for "discrimination" (red-lining) and by guaranteeing bad loans using taxpayer money. That's socialism's plan to ensnare the poor in a web of debt that allows socialists to manipulate their votes.

There may be issues with how easily credit is made available, and in your country, perhaps part of that is poor government decisions. However, lenders are themselves bound up in the consumerist ethic, and will themselves contribute to the way people take on excessive debt in any economy. However, whatever regulations exist or don't exist to exert control on lending, the root motivation for excess borrowing remains exactly as I stated it; consumerist passions, deliberately stoked by the engine room of capitalism, the advertising industry.

Okay, I'll agree that the 'root motivation' is as you say. That doesn't mean that socialists haven't been gaming the system for about a hundred years now to make things worse. At the moment, the new tactic is the "Cloward-Piven" plan wherein the (capitalist) system is deliberately overwhelmed (by for example allowing unlimited and unregulated immigration) so that the economy collapses, at which point the proletariat will demand a "savior" and Marxism will pop up it's ugly head and say "Somebody called for me?"

[Blind groper]

Seth

Marx died 139 years ago. If Marxism is some sneaky conspiracy creeping up on us, it is sure taking its time!

[laklak]

Well, Jebus died 2000 years ago and the little fucker is still hanging on.

[Seth]

Seth

Marx died 139 years ago. If Marxism is some sneaky conspiracy creeping up on us, it is sure taking its time!

Yes, it is. That's what the Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists intended. Slow and steady wins the race, in their opinion.

[rainbow]

Seth

Marx died 139 years ago. If Marxism is some sneaky conspiracy creeping up on us, it is sure taking its time!

Yes, it is. That's what the Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists intended. Slow and steady wins the race, in their opinion.

Nobody. Absolutely nobody who has ever eaten a currywurst would ever believe that.

[Seth]

Seth

Marx died 139 years ago. If Marxism is some sneaky conspiracy creeping up on us, it is sure taking its time!

Yes, it is. That's what the Frankfurt School Neo-Marxists intended. Slow and steady wins the race, in their opinion.

Nobody. Absolutely nobody who has ever eaten a currywurst would ever believe that.

That's because it's not a Marxist currywurst. If it were, you'd eat it and then a hundred years or more later you'd get the worst heartburn and your asshole would be a ring of fire. Were it a Marxist currywurst, it would make promises it doesn't keep and then it would fuck you up the ass with a red-hot poker down the road.

[pErvinalia]

Is that a fucking real product?!?

[Hermit]

Is that a fucking real product?!?

Apparently Maccas has introduced its version of German fast food a couple of years ago.

Someone checked it out and was not impressed. Go to the six minute mark for commentary on that gunk in English.

[Blind groper]

Marxism is not 'slow and steady winning the race'. It is yesterday's dessert, now pooped out the back.

Even China has mostly dropped it, and is running its economy using capitalist principles.

[Seth]

Marxism is not 'slow and steady winning the race'. It is yesterday's dessert, now pooped out the back.

Even China has mostly dropped it, and is running its economy using capitalist principles.

Oh no it hasn't. It's merely put on sheep's clothing to cozen its enemies and make them complacent and disbelieving of the Marxist threat lying just under the surface. If China were rejecting Marxism and embracing capitalism it wouldn't be building up its military and creating and arming new islands in the China Sea.

That you think China has foresworn Marxism only proves how devious and effective the plan is.

[JimC]

Marxism is not 'slow and steady winning the race'. It is yesterday's dessert, now pooped out the back.

Even China has mostly dropped it, and is running its economy using capitalist principles.

Oh no it hasn't. It's merely put on sheep's clothing to cozen its enemies and make them complacent and disbelieving of the Marxist threat lying just under the surface. If China were rejecting Marxism and embracing capitalism it wouldn't be building up its military and creating and arming new islands in the China Sea.

That you think China has foresworn Marxism only proves how devious and effective the plan is.

It has not abandoned the totalitarian aspects of marxist regimes in the past, and I agree that its current expansionist tendencies are dangerous. However, it has well and truly abandoned most of the economic models of authentic Marxism, having pragmatically realised that it can combine those aspects of free enterprise which lead to higher economic growth with enough state control to ensure that the ruling party remains on top.