The President is a Socialist

President Ronald Reagan was a vicious socialist, he and his commie buddies systemically turned America in a tax heavy welfare state.  Under his term Ronald Reagan raised taxes every year he was in office.  Even while raising taxes he managed to triple the national debt.

Yes he TRIPLED the national debt all while RAISING TAXES EVERY YEAR that he was in office after the first with a total of 11 TAX INCREASES. 

Under Reagan the federal government consumed 23.5% of the national income, the highest in American history.  This was in 1983, after his big tax cut and reforms.  Also the four years in which the federal government consumed most of the nations income were all under Reagan 1983, 1982, 1985, and 1986.

Reagan raised taxes on gasoline and cigarettes in 1982, in 1983 he raised taxes on payrolls (Obama lowered them recently in a deal with the Republican party that allowed them to keep their tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans)

In 1986 Reagan slashed taxes for the top bracket alone, causing a disparity in where the highest earners paid 28% on their income taxes and the bracket beneath that paid 33%.  While he slashed taxes for the wealthy he raised the for the poorest americans raising the lowest bracket from 11% to 15%

It's clear that Reagans aim was the socialist goal of wealth redistribution.

He also signed into law a sweeping amnesty act for every illegal immigrant who had entered the country before 1982.  HE GRANTED AMNESTY TO EVERY ILLEGAL WHO ENTERED THE COUNTRY BEFORE 1982

I chose to put things in caps and reiterate them because it seems that a lot of people here don't seem to get it the first time when they read something they don't like.

The last decent president of the USA was andrew jackson.

"Yes he TRIPLED the national debt"

It annoys me when people say shit like this about any president. It's not like he did it single-handedly. That said, you do have a good point.

Reagan was the least communist president in recent years but technically he is still a communist by logical objective standards.

We really need to up the ante and point out that anything other than totally unfettered laissez faire capitalism with state funding only going towards the enforcement of property law and a machiavellian plot bordering on jingoism to get other countries into the global ultracapitalist fold might as well be considered a slightly less extreme shade of hardcore stalinism.

moderate socialism is good
capitalism is bad
the more companies, the better
the smaller, the less powerful
the less powerful, the better

i would never call such a scumbag a good politician. regan was justg a fucking rich, pro-corp dick.

also, i'm tired of people calling our former (and our present) presidents 'commies'. jesus fucking christ. not even fucking close. not a good comparison whatsoever

seriously go fucking die... or read a book and stop spewing random fucktard shit on the internet

>>4
Why do you need the state to uphold property laws? Seems to me that the logical conclusion would be that property and borders and such should be voluntarily set.
Government property laws and zoning and garbage like that causes serious problems.

>>5 umad?

I do, however, agree with you on an economic issue.
I think that the market-form you are getting at is perfect competition (directly translated out of my language).
It means that there are plenty of players on the market to compete with one another.
Quality is high and prices are low. (cuz of competition)
Problem is that you cannot get "economies of scale" (dunno if this word is correctly used).
So this might be good in some sectors, it might also be bad in other sectors.
I think the sectors that benefit of these economies of scale should be under control of the state.

What you said about power also applies to government.
Too much power in the hands of a few will always result in greed(hedgefunds, banks-> no-prime/sub-prime loans to obtain  exorbitant bonuses for the risks taken, not with their own money, but with deposits).
We need to make the states more transparant, so we can show the world the weapondeals made by prominent government agents all across the world.

There is also a huge flaw in representative democracy: In which way does it represent us??
If we look at pol-sci studies, we see a minority lower class citizens.
How can we call this "representation" and a "reflection of the society" when we don't even have the chance to represent our segment of society.

If this problem of representation cannot be fixed, then what other options do we have left?
Maybe decentralised, transparant direct democracy?

>>7 just to clarify my hastily written contriboot:
* the company needs to be big to succesfully maximise profits, state should controll this --> with transparency
I think government-controlled companies did not work because of the people within the government scratching eachothers back.
When we have some kind of direct, transparent democracy, we wouldn't allow it to be so goddamn inefficient.

* pol-sci courses or university in general has a disproportional amount of lower class citizens.
We need to evolve more to a meritocratic society.
That way we will increase the quality of life in a lot of different ways.

>>8
btw, my thoughts range from Anarchist to social-democratic...
Some elements of capitalism are good for efficiency, but not for equity.

>>5
>>7-9
Socialism is why corporations can get so powerful. Of course they're not socialist in theory, but I don't care about theory, only practice, socialism provides them with the political impetus to pass through all these regulations, kickbacks and corporate welfare in their favor because people who don't really understand what is happening believe that the state is representing their interests and expanding state control over the economy means expanding "collective ownership over the means of production".

The administrative efficiency of economies of scale would far outstrip any corruption due to centralization in an economy where corporations are denied special privileges from the state. It is more realistic to strip evil corporations of their power by changing political culture into a post-socialist one, where marxism is almost universally rejected and considered a dead dog like fascism.

Efficiency is good for equity, we need to go laissez faire, for these poor folk you talk about so much, we need to outsource jobs to India and tell hipsters no one is going to pay for their liberal arts degree so they might as well shut up and become a corporate drone or they'll be flipping burgers for 4 decades to pay off their useless student loan. People should either study chemical engineering in cram schools like the Chinese do or accept their place.

>>6
And by what method should they be set? I also don't believe the government is a necessary evil, however I believe it's inevitable rather than unnecessary, a power structure will exist whether you call it a government or not.

>>10

You just said America needs to become more like China and accept that you can't follow your dreams or personal goals but have to follow a set career path handed to you by others.

And you call that post-socialism

>>11
Reality decided those things, not me.

>>10
Listen bro...
You have to explain your arguments a bit better.
"Socialism is why corporations can get so powerful."
Rly?

Of course they're not socialist in theory, but I don't care about theory, only practice, socialism provides them with the political impetus to pass through all these regulations, kickbacks and corporate welfare in their favor because people who don't really understand what is happening believe that the state is representing their interests and expanding state control over the economy means expanding "collective ownership over the means of production".

What is this, I don't even

Ru5real?

>>13
get a clue about life you idiot commie.

>>10
>>14
TROLL
nobody could really believe this.

>>13
Let me break it down for you.

Corporations benefit from special privileges from the state.

Voters have to allow the state to intervene in the economy for them to do this.

Politicians tell voters that when the state intervenes the economy it is doing it for "the people". This soundbite may seem good but it is a blanket statement, it does not address particular policies and allow voters to decide whether it is in fact for the people.

>>16

That would be corporatism, or fascism.  Socialism would demand the nationalization of all industries, they could not remain privately owned companies.  We currently have a corporatist system in the united states.

>>17
>Socialism would demand
no
apparently you missed the point.
>This soundbite may seem good but it is a blanket statement

There is no such thing as socialism or communism. They are utopian fantasies invented by anti-white jewry. The most important part of it is that ALWAYS it involves a destruction of the current order so that worldwide jewry and other alien elements can seize power.

>>18
let me break it down to you:
socialism or social democracy is in practice regulation.
From what I know, regulation = not good for corporations.
eg. a bank that took risky loans for high bonus and is going bankrupt would be nationalised for state control or partly nationalised or strictly monitored.

There are ofcourse ideological differences between socialist/ social democratic parties across various countries and continents. (therefore not lineair)
For you to talk this way about an ideology is downright ignorant.

If we look at the current situation of Spain, we see all parties agreeing on the terms imposed by the IMF and the EU.

socialist =not marxist =not communism
PROTIP: ideologies aren't lineair to begin with (cf supra)

Last question to you:
will a Keynesian wellfarestate (regulation & nationalisation of keyfactors of the economy --> electricity, gas, water, public transportation, etc) have a negative effect on corporations?
will it have a positive effect on society as a whole?

Just wanna know where you stand with this...

>>18

You think that lumping all ideologies together makes you seem smart, like you can tell they're all really the same.  In reality you just come off ignorant of their differences and incapable of discussing the topic intelligently.  Also thinking that 'the jews' are behind everything is so 1930's

>>17
Spoiler: They lie.

They promote collective ownership over the means of production (socialism) when they want to expand corporatist state control over the economy, that was why I was distinguishing between socialism in theory and socialism in practice earlier.

Maybe I should refine my argument, maybe I overestimate the role of socialist principles as propoganda to expand corporatist power, it's still a factor though. Socialism has been turned into some kind of religious ideology by people claiming to be humanists but it's not, it's just a set of actions like any other which can have both positive or negative consequences and many of which are unpredictable.

>>21
"They promote collective ownership over the means of production (socialism) when they want to expand corporatist state control over the economy, that was why I was distinguishing between socialism in theory and socialism in practice earlier."

This actually made me understand what you meant in the first place. (I'm not >>17 btw)
You are right that socialism could, in practice, be just a way to increase corporate state control over the economy.
But that is caused by the corporatist system itself, ie corporatism does not take part in the ideology (socialism) itself, but is rather something asociated with eg. social democracy. (or anything else based on capitalism)

That flaw you've pointed out is a flaw inherent to the corporatist model, I'll try to explain my thoughts:

- mixing of public and private interest: --> lobbying in different sorts of ways; politicians recieve mandates for powerful companies --> getting paid lots to listen to business propaganda.(they call this 'working' and 'doing a good job')

- unsuccesful representative democracy: --> private sectors have a disproportionate amount of power (especially a few big fish) -> this is what we call plutocracy
If we forget about a few countries in Latin-America, we can see general treat in all nations across the globe: the majority of the members of the government are upper-middle class to upper class.

- collective ownership over the means of production is just an idea:
If you would take this statement literally, something the commies/socialists never could, would mean that every company would be under WORKERS control. (state=proletariat if state is under 'workers control')

Anarcho-syndicalism is actually, from a theoretic point of view, pretty close to this idea. (as it, in basic terms, strives to a small state, with a cooperative business model)

(gonna reread it after I posted.. just to much now)

>>21
If the state doesn't 'represent' the population, ie overly representing corporations because of private interest in public institutions, it will be quite obvious that the state would apply it's power for selfintrest.

For example: powerful companies can lobby for subsidies and taxcuts and get it done (if you are from a western country, you probably have a company(ies) that pays a ridiculous low amount of tax... I live in Europe and I know it for sure concerning a few countries)


My thoughts imply a causality between centralised power and self-interest.
Basic questions I ask myself are:
How can society as a whole reach consensus, or to put it in different terms, how can power be divided between all the segments of society? (>representative democracy obviously not an option, or at least totally reformed)

>>21
If there is a socialist "theory" which is unrelated to practice, then it is a FANTASY and not worth talking about.

You filthy commies are in fact far worse then the religious Christians you complain about. Believing in far more outrageous and idiotic nonsense.