Are you a "Useful Idiot"? DISCUSS

[jeremy1375]

I've laid out all of my reasoning in my posts for why it's ridiculous and why no truth should be taken from it. Anybody can write anything they want and that was the point I was making with my alternate version. The entire basis of the post was liberal bashing.

You pass this around and folks take it into consideration that it might be true. The message that it conveys is scary. Many people buy into fear whether the message is true or not. If, in fact, Alinsky had written a path to a socialist country that Obama was following, that would be bad. But, that is not the case.

[jeremy1375]

You say you don't have any opinion about the post, but you passed it on under it's terms.

Please, take a moment and read this to the end. You will note that the current administration is on target on all 8 levels of control. If you agree, pass this on. We can only do something about it, if we fully realize what is happening.

[1ViciousGSX]

I get what you're saying, that anybody can write anything at any given time. I understand that. And this is all for the purpose of discussion.

Stalin did use the term "Useful Idiots" for western supporters who were sympathetic to the communist cause. So it does raise the question "does our government get things done by using useful idiots"? I'd say they do. Jonathan Gruber even said that without the stupidity of the American voter, Obamacare would have never passed. So it leads to reasoning that through poverty, welfare and poor basic education that the government could be creating useful idiots on purpose. Look at Common Core which has been on the down turn since educators started figuring it out.

But let's just say beyond that, if you look at any of those 8 things listed, if they are happening, regardless of Alinksky or Stalin, would they be good or bad for the country and why?

[jeremy1375]

Stalin did use the term "Useful Idiots" for western supporters who were sympathetic to the communist cause. So it does raise the question "does our government get things done by using useful idiots"? I'd say they do. Jonathan Gruber even said that without the stupidity of the American voter, Obamacare would have never passed.

This is where the problem with using the term useful idiots. It's all a matter of opinion. Regardless of Jonathan Gruber's opinion, I'd vote for Obamacare again. According to you, that would make me a useful idiot. I'm not quite sure how to define "idiot", but I generally score in the 137 range on IQ tests, so I wouldn't qualify on that basis.

To review my stance on the 8 levels of control, refer to my alternate post and that's how I see things.

[1ViciousGSX]

This is where the problem with using the term useful idiots. It's all a matter of opinion. Regardless of Jonathan Gruber's opinion, I'd vote for Obamacare again. According to you, that would make me a useful idiot. I'm not quite sure how to define "idiot", but I generally score in the 137 range on IQ tests, so I wouldn't qualify on that basis.

To review my stance on the 8 levels of control, refer to my alternate post and that's how I see things.

Don't think I'm calling you a useful idiot, because I'm not. It's more of a generalized statement because there are many, LoL.

I'm enjoying the discussion though. And I'll be glad to continue it soon, gotta get back to work for the moment.

[jeremy1375]

I can understand that you're not outright calling me a useful idiot. Can you understand why I would think that that though? Your statement below essentially describes Obamacare voters as useful idiots. It's hard not to take it personally when I fit into the category you've just described.


Stalin did use the term "Useful Idiots" for western supporters who were sympathetic to the communist cause. So it does raise the question "does our government get things done by using useful idiots"? I'd say they do. Jonathan Gruber even said that without the stupidity of the American voter, Obamacare would have never passed.

[jeremy1375]

Same concept as the rumor post.

http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/510/802/591.jpg

[1ViciousGSX]

Ok, let's call this thing here the 8 level of a 1st world country. An alternate version of the initial post.

1) Healthcare - Universal health care
And how many countries is it bankrupting? Can't have your cake and eat it too. There's no free lunch.
2) Poverty - Unlike 3rd world countries, the majority of people do not live in poverty
I agree. But why haven't those countries followed our lead and followed the model the USA has set for the rest of the world? All I see is the USA being brought down instead of the rest of the world being brought up.
3) Debt - A central bank exists where all money is created from an equal amount of debt
This is a financial trap for any country. Having money that is not backed by something real (i.e. gold), it's nothing but play money. Just like it is here since Nixon took us off the gold standard.
4) Gun Control - All first world countries have some level of gun control
We have gun control here. How far should it go before it overly burdens law abiding citizens?
5) Welfare - There is a safety net system in place to help those who are struggling.
We already have that, but it's turning into a life style and a career choice. And it's becoming unsustainable.
6) Education - The highest levels of education exist here.
Private/elitist class higher education maybe, across the board, no.
7) Religion - No religions should be given priority
Agreed, as long as a religion doesn't promote harm to another individual, I don't care either way.
8) Class Warfare - As has always existed in history class warfare exists. Economists are working on the best way to handle this.
Economist are failing. Legislators and elitist are the problem. The reality of it is that instead of bringing up the poor we're bringing down the middle class. Don't believe me? Look at current IRS income levels of the top 1%, 2%, 5%, 10%, 20%, 50%, etc. Notice it's not as big a swing as you might think. And with inflation it only makes it worse as your dollar buys you less.
See attachments from http://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2014/demo/p60-249.pdf starting on page 30 . Also notice it doesn't include the top 1-2%.
You can't legislate and regulate individual drive and intellegence. Those with the will to suceed, do. The rest will just get by.


I just wrote this now. Do you see my point yet?

Sorry, I've been out of pocket, but wanted to continue our converation. See above.

[jeremy1375]

I think the issues all come down to a matter of perception. I won't deny that any of the points you're making could possibly be true. The U.S. could be going to shit in a hurry. Things like universal healthcare, fiat currencies, and welfare certainly could destroy our economy. The only certainty that exists in life is uncertainty. There are no road maps on how to make a perfect government.

Could Obamacare fail? Sure it could. But, the whole point is to figure out what works. It's an overstatement to say universal healthcare is bankrupting all other countries as some countries are doing fine with it. Nothing is perfect so Of course there are problems that need to be dealt with, but that is the same with anything. Before Obamacare, insurance companies sold insurance that could be revoked if you all of a sudden find yourself with a serious illness. If you paid for health insurance, shouldn't you have health insurance if you need it? That problem doesn't have a market based solution. If Obamacare fails in it's goals that's fine, we go back to the drawing board.

Income is stagnant. So what? Nothing goes up forever. Things ebb and flow, sometimes for longer than we'd like. Could it mean we are on the verge of collapse? Sure it could. More likely it means that we are not in a period of explosive growth. It doesn't happen all the time. We are well passed the beginning of the industrial revolution and dot com isn't as exciting anymore. Eventually someone will come up with the next big thing, but it takes time. We are very fortunate to have existed thru such expansive boom times.

Fiat currency. I would argue that gold is also a fiat currency. If the economy collapes, you can't eat, drink, or wipe your ass with gold, so it's no better than paper from that angle. But, let's look at it from the side of it being a deflationary currency. The only way to grow wealth with a deflationary currency is for it to grow in value. This is the best example I can think of at this moment. If your work pays you with a deflationary currency such as gold, as it's value goes up, you will receive smaller and smaller pieces of gold for the same work. Lets say you buy a house for 100 ounces of gold. 100 Ounces of gold in 2020 could conceivably have the same value as 50 ounces in 2050. If you have to pay back the 100 ounces of gold in 2050, you will be paying a shitload more than the value of the loan plus interest. If you only paid back actual value to the lender, they would have been better of just keeping their money. Could fiat currencies be the death of our economy? Maybe, but not necessarily. Everything comes with it's own set of problems.

I could go on but you probably get my point by now.

[1ViciousGSX]

I think the issues all come down to a matter of perception. I won't deny that any of the points you're making could possibly be true. The U.S. could be going to shit in a hurry. Things like universal healthcare, fiat currencies, and welfare certainly could destroy our economy. The only certainty that exists in life is uncertainty. There are no road maps on how to make a perfect government.

Could Obamacare fail? Sure it could. But, the whole point is to figure out what works. It's an overstatement to say universal healthcare is bankrupting all other countries as some countries are doing fine with it. No they're not, unless you think reduced quality of care is winning, which is the opposite of what Obamancare was suppoosed to be. http://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2011/12/19/the-ugly-realities-of-socialized-medicine-are-not-going-away-3/ But I'm openminded, please show me where they are. Nothing is perfect so Of course there are problems that need to be dealt with, but that is the same with anything. Before Obamacare, insurance companies sold insurance that could be revoked if you all of a sudden find yourself with a serious illness. If you paid for health insurance, shouldn't you have health insurance if you need it? Of course you should. That problem doesn't have a market based solution. Yes the market had a solution. All insurance is regulated, so it would have been much simpler to insert a legal requirement that if you sell insurance and that premium is paid as it should be, you can't revoke a person's policy or coverage if they become ill. The Dems kept that from you because it was part of the Republican/Conservative plan. There was no need to destroy the current system when all it needed was tweaking. Would you throw away good car because a tire needed to be plugged? If Obamacare fails in it's goals that's fine, we go back to the drawing board. There won't be a "back to the drawing board", it will be single payer and government controlled at point, which is the intended purpose.

Income is stagnant. So what? Nothing goes up forever. Things ebb and flow, sometimes for longer than we'd like. Could it mean we are on the verge of collapse? Sure it could. More likely it means that we are not in a period of explosive growth. It doesn't happen all the time. We are well passed the beginning of the industrial revolution and dot com isn't as exciting anymore. Eventually someone will come up with the next big thing, but it takes time. We are very fortunate to have existed thru such expansive boom times. Income is actually going down while inflation keeps going up, the debt keeps going up, etc. So you are getting much less for your money.

Fiat currency. I would argue that gold is also a fiat currency. Then explain why countries and elitist are hoarding up as much gold as they can? Explain why oil producing regimes (Gaddafi, Hussein, etc) who have tried to be paid in gold or Euros for their oil instead of the US dollar have been taken out one by one? True story, look it up. If the economy collapes, you can't eat, drink, or wipe your ass with gold, so it's no better than paper from that angle. True, but gold will follow the enourmous inflation that will hit when it does collapse. So lets say that an ounce of gold shoots up in value 200% because of a collapse, that would also equate to the dollar going down in value 200%. Now who do think think has a better shot at affording that loaf of bread. the guy who needs $400 in US currency or they guy who has the gold that followed the upswing in cost? But, let's look at it from the side of it being a deflationary currency. The only way to grow wealth with a deflationary currency is for it to grow in value. This is the best example I can think of at this moment. If your work pays you with a deflationary currency such as gold, as it's value goes up, you will receive smaller and smaller pieces of gold for the same work. Lets say you buy a house for 100 ounces of gold. 100 Ounces of gold in 2020 could conceivably have the same value as 50 ounces in 2050. If you have to pay back the 100 ounces of gold in 2050, you will be paying a shitload more than the value of the loan plus interest. But it's not based on the volume of gold, its based on the value. If you only paid back actual value to the lender, they would have been better of just keeping their money. Could fiat currencies be the death of our economy? Maybe, but not necessarily. Everything comes with it's own set of problems.

I could go on but you probably get my point by now.

My thoughts,....