12

3 Charts Show How Much Support Democrats Have for Socialism

Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 5 months ago to Culture
62 comments | Share | Flag

What a fool believes? Do they not teach any history in schools anymore?

All Comments

Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by Herb7734 9 years, 5 months ago
    Oh, AJ, I fear that they only teach history in a skewed and twisted manner. Over 10 years ago, I happened to nosily skim through one of the teens history books. I don't remember too much, of what I found, but I figured two presidents would stand out. They did but not the way I expected. Lincoln got less than 1/2 of a page and I could hardly find a reference to Washington. Certain events, mostly negative, appeared to be covered extensively. It was a time when my grandkids were moving from a Montessori school to public high school. The Montessori locally only went to 8th grade. I volunteered to drive them as far as needed to keep them out of public high school to no avail. I still needle my son about it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by mdk2608 9 years, 5 months ago
    More sad news for our country and another example of how far the democratic party has declined
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ allosaur 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Clinton is a socialist as well as a liar. Just like Obama.
    Isn't that freaking obvious?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ KahnQuest 9 years, 5 months ago
    I really wish I could find this quote again (and its attribution). It repeats in my head every time I hear this ass-clown's name.

    "Any man who is not a communist in his twenties is a fool, and any man who is not a Capitalist in his thirties is an even bigger fool."

    Democrats might favor socialism, but it's because they don't actually understand it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by hattrup 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Killing crony capitalism would be a start - that would not involve theft. Elimination of other similar activity would also help ("Foundations" help those who can afford $50K/year in attorney fees escape tax laws the rest of us can't afford to play with, etc.)

    Not sure about fair (not too concerned), but we should have a more level playing field.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ AJAshinoff 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Curious, how does wealth become more evenly distributed without a degree of theft? Also, who determines what fair distribution is?
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 9 years, 5 months ago
    I am one of the 48% of Clinton supporters who, according to the article, view socialism in a negative light.

    I do believe wealth in the world should be more evenly distributed, but I don't think it should happen by stealing. I esp don't like the 99% rhetoric. If half the population wants to help the poor, not because someone is shaming them or using force but really wants to, I think that's a good thing. If 99% of the population is looking for a handout in some form or another, society collapses-- not because of ideology but because of math.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by $ MichaelAarethun 9 years, 5 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Not a new complaint. The problem lies in tying the stock market crash too closely with the depression. The crash sucked a lot of investment capital and then the government with it's new found wealth jumped income tax from 7% to 77% which sucked more investment capital out of the market. Depression and joblessness went up after the stock market crash and in concert with the rise of government programs. Income tax followed by social security which orignally was to take care of the destitute and grew into a ponzi scam.

    Looking at the figures you can say the only thing that pulled the US out of the muck and mire was World War II where unemployment shrunk to almost nothing.

    The small amount ended up as the automatic 5% lop off the work force after WWII. Add in a few other items such as the drought years and losing millions of tons of topsoil to really bad farming practices

    Immigration statistics support the contention the government programs failed see 1931 to 1940 then were held up by WWII

    Highest immigration so far last decade of 20th century nine million first decade of 21st century 14 million. Mexico has been second behind Germany and ahead of United Kingdom. Europe ahead of the other continents and subcontinents excepting North America which became other parts of the world depending on the wars Asia primarly took it's turn Now Eastern Europe has had a large helpiong of slots. Overall to 1800 to 2010 Mexico Number Two.consistently. Europe in the late 1800s was high numbers due to the long periods of cold and lack of food production. Scandanavia and places like Ukraine contributed to USA and Canada in those periods.


    But for the depression years it all quit. The only entity to blame was the government and government policies based on a switch to socialism and keynesian economics. The savior as they fast learned was war. Remains so to this day. Only question is when and where. Middle East or some new place for the next generations war stories.

    1901 - 1910 8,795,386 immigrants arrive in the US

    1911 - 1920 5,735,811 immigrants arrive in the US

    1921 - 1930 4,107,209 immigrants arrive in the US

    1931 - 1940 532,431 immigrants arrive in the US (Great Depression)

    1941 - 1950 1,035,039 immigrants arrive in the US

    Summary. The main culprit through out has been bad government policies and programs.But recall government and business has been for many decades two thirds of the control. Statist, corporatist, and union leaders.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by j_IR1776wg 9 years, 5 months ago
    What a f***ing liar. Bureau of Labor statistics show that the unemployment rate was 19 percent in 1938 after 5 years of FDRs Socialist policies.

    From an estimated annual rate of 3.3 percent during 1923-29, the unemployment rate rose to a peak of about 25 percent in 1933. The economy reached its trough in 1933; but although unemployment had reached its peak, economic recovery was slow, hesitant, and far from complete. As shown below, the unemployment rate was still nearly 15 percent in 1940.

    Unemployment rate

    1923-29 3.3

    1930 8.9

    1931 15.9

    1932 23.6

    1933 24.9

    1934 21.7

    1935 20.1

    1936 17.0

    1937 14.3

    1938 19.0

    1939 17.2

    1940 14.6

    1941 9.9

    1942 4.7


    http://www.bls.gov/opub/cwc/print/cm2...

    Bernie thinks we have been dumbed down enough to accept this crap quietly.
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo