As Margaret Thatcher pointed out, "Socilaism fails when they run out of other people's money."

I've often said, as many here have thought too, that the fatal flaw of socialism is when there's no one left to pay the bill. The socialist states have all failed but the new wanna be's always think they, and their elitist crowd, can run the people better.

I surprised that such an approach was even considered. How, I think, would facilitating the collapse help? The economic void would then be taken over by the socialists, progressives or whatever they are. This is what the aim of the C-P strategy is. Having said all this, I'm reading saul alinsky's rules to see if any would fit in with the Objectionist view. Not really; they're just 12 scary rules that obama and his crew adhere to very effectively. Rule # 12 got him re-elected. Read them and judge for yourself.

The C-P strategy is to use the system against itself. It's one of saul alinsky's rules (#4). C-P discovered that only about 50% of the people that qualified for welfare in NYC/NYS were using welfare. So they enrolled as many of them that they could, legally, to overload the system and crash NYC/NYS ecomomies which they did.

NYC/NYS asked the feds for a bail out and President Ford said NO! I guess they were'nt too big to fail.

My take when first reading this stategy was they were doing it from the bottom, up; and, obama is doing it from the top, down;i.e., overload and crash the economy.

And, by working, J has self-worth.

As I posted above, charities did exist before the socialists reared their heads. The church(s) mainly provided the charity.

Separation of Church and State meant that the feds must keep their nose out of religion; not that the religion should keep their nose out of goverment. The founders encouraged the individual states to support a religion or religions. Public buildings were used for church meetings and churches were used for public meetings. Now the term "separation of church and state" has been perverted to religion being kicked out of government altogther. Maybe that's why charities have adversely affected. No church, no charity. And, then having created the void, Mr. Government steps in with a helping hand.

But make them uncomfortable in their poverty will end their poverty (paraphrasing Ben Franklin). Except for the truly needy such as invalids, mentally ill, etc. who can't fend for themselves why should we have to provide for others by dictum. If they had no "government teat" to suck on, what will they do? Work? Bubba Clinton proved this somewhat with his welfare reform act. Well maybe not his idea but he signed the bill; and, he who signs the bill, gets the credit.

It used to be "charity" was the solution to meeting people's problems. It started at the churches. Now being a secular state, church is gone and so is charity as the only means.

Charity happened in Boston when people gave for the injured and the families fo the murders. Obama, representing the state, gave for the OT the 10,000 police earned.

If you don't think the Left is motivated by complete thoughlessness and utter cruelty, you don't know the Left.

Ah...he's young. Not what I was picturing.

Simple answer, I like him. He was head over heels in love with the girl &... well you know the saying, love is blind. He's 19 & realised too late what she was. He learned from it.

I doubt he'll be with us much longer, he plans to get a flat soon with a friend. He wants to be an architect too. I gave him my copy of Fountainhead.

Congratulations :) Glad to hear it. Although I should minus a point for using it as an excuse to not make me laugh. sigh.

dk....why don't you talk to me anymore? :(

Why was it a choice of either or? I wouldn't have taken either of them in....their decisions got them where they are. They are grown ups. Perhaps you're just nicer than I am. (Have we talked about the word "nice" yet? lol) If one decides to shack up with a lazy looser then there will be a price to pay...he had to know she was lazy before McD's "sacked" her. (I love that British term..."sacked"...) Anyway... grown ups need to act like grown ups. If you feel he's worth helping then that is your choice to do so. Let me ask you this... how long does he get to stay? Personally, iffin' I ever did let someone I thought was worthy live in my house to help them out of a tough spot I'd have a 12 week limit on it...unless they did something that earned them an earlier exit. :)

Well I hope you're right, LOOK HOW LONG IT'S TAKEN THE SOCIALISTS TO RECOVER FROM THE DEVASTATION THATCHER WROUGHT. :) She stamped on union power & I've got to admit she did that pretty quickly so maybe there is hope. The unions have never regained such power: the left have crept back slowly, employing even more devious methods - as mentioned in an article I posted earlier.

I think the problem for us is legislation passed in Europe. Trying to pull out of the EU while being able to maintain trade with Europe could be a tricky business. I can't imagine they'll make it easy for us, seeing as Europe is run by Communists.

Okay. I have a lodger (J). He's a hard worker. He used to live in London but moved down south to be with his girlfriend (who used to spend quite a lot of time at our house). Both of them were out of work but looking. It took them four months of trying before they finally landed jobs at... MacDonalds.

J was working all hours available to him & was exhausted. He did all this to pay for a flat for him & his girlfriend.

She got sacked for being lazy & it was discovered that she was cheating on J with one of the managers at McD's. J gave up the flat & her new boyfriend moved in & took over the rent. J had nowhere to go so I took him in.

The manager guy got sacked from McD's for giving out free food to his mates. They lost the flat. He got her pregnant. They've got a house now, meanwhile J's still living with us. He walks 6 miles a day to get to & from work & often doesn't get home til gone midnight. Much of what he earns is paying off a debt which she ran up.

Of the two parties, who would you consider had the greatest need? J who's working hard & has a new girlfriend with a brain, or a poor jobless pregnant girl who's only got herself to blame for the mess she's created for herself & others?

I chose to take him in because he was worth it. He costs me nothing. She on the other hand... can go fish.

We don't go hungry. I would never put another's needs before those of my family.

Ha! I've asked them for their phone numbers before, so I can call them at 9:30pm on Sunday... Click!

Ooohhhh, like unions!! I'm really being sarcastic deliberately here....

Lol. The best way to get rid of telemarketers is to ask them who they wish to speak to, then say one moment please & leave the phone on the table for 20 minutes. It costs them money. They get the message. ;]

I have a question for you.... at what point would you say no to a person in need? When you're own children are hungry? When you've given away your house payment? My point is this....no one should have to be forced to give to another and sacrifice their own well being. Just wonder where you would draw the line. (I've told many of my friends "don't let your lack of preparation be MY emergency...because I won't." If they don't listen to reason when it is spoken then they are making a choice, and THAT choice is THEIR OWN.)

Hey Joss -

Yes - I think the implementers of the CP strategy are willing to sacrifice everybody - for the sake of getting themselves into power. I don't think it's even about the greater good - I think it's just useful rhetoric to achieve the goal of dictatorial power. That's the end game. This isn't about a benevolent central authority seeing that all the needs are met. "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face."

I heard about UKIP just in the last year - kind of the British version of the Tea Party here, I gather. Hopefully, it gathers momentum. The response to Thatcher's passing worries me and shows just what you're up against.

I really don't think it ought to take all that long of a time to untangle ourselves from this mess. The frustrating thing to me is we can erect new taxes and programs so quickly, but people think it will take decades or generations to unwind them. Obviously, nothing government does happens "overnight", but there is no reason in my mind that we couldn't be tearing down the welfare state by reductions in payments, working towards zero, over a two year time span.
Will it hurt? Of course it will - it will be TRAUMATIC. But it is a more right thing to do than what we are currently doing, and getting the job done in two years is much better than in four, or eight, or twenty. The longer your time horizon, the more chance it never gets done at all and people accept "socialism light".

True. I've posted more thoughts below in case you're worried I'm a lefty lover. :)