My experience of social reform.

NEW -> Contingent Buyer Assistance Program
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226109111]BK, That is a moving story, and I see how experiences such as those would give you strong political convictions. I am curious about something implied by the concerns you expressed, do you really worry that Obama and the Democrats will enact policies even remotely similar to Communist China?</blockquote>


I seriously do not think Obama in his 4 years could take this country to the level of erosion that I described. Our founding fathers were too clever in setting up the process governing the presidential election. The check and balance of power and the duration of the presidency were written by geniuses. Voters could be bought so the electoral votes could override the power of the people who might have conspired with an inappropriate presidential candidate like in the case of Chairman Mao in running for the highest office. Even in the case of Mao who might become the president of this country his term was only good for 4 years. The damage is limited.



Various Obama's social programs will improve the quality of life for the poor but will not encourage most of them to step out of poverty. In fact it will create more dependency and decrease motivation to succeed. It is the nature of human to take the path of least resistance. Making more money will disqualify welfare recipients in receiving their welfare benefits so why work harder and get less? I feel strongly this idea was the fundamental evil to old China. Rewarding bad behavior (poverty) will only lead to more bad behavior. Those who really did make it out of poverty I applaud them for having "spine". Immigrants in particular tie to their ethnic cultural and social value tend to view welfare and government assistance as a temporary measure.
 
[quote author="bkshopr" date=1226144085][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226109111]BK, That is a moving story, and I see how experiences such as those would give you strong political convictions. I am curious about something implied by the concerns you expressed, do you really worry that Obama and the Democrats will enact policies even remotely similar to Communist China?</blockquote>


I seriously do not think Obama in his 4 years could take this country to the level of erosion that I described. Our founding fathers were too clever in setting up the process governing the presidential election. The check and balance of power and the duration of the presidency were written by geniuses. Voters could be bought so the electoral votes could override the power of the people who might have conspired with an inappropriate presidential candidate like in the case of Chairman Mao in running for the highest office. Even in the case of Mao who might become the president of this country his term was only good for 4 years. The damage is limited.



Various Obama's social programs will improve the quality of life for the poor but will not encourage most of them to step out of poverty. In fact it will create more dependency and decrease motivation to succeed. It is the nature of human to take the path of least resistance. Making more money will disqualify welfare recipients in receiving their welfare benefits so why work harder and get less? I feel strongly this idea was the fundamental evil to old China. Awarding bad behavior (poverty) will only lead to more bad behavior. Those who really did make it out of poverty I applaud them for having "spine". Immigrants in particular tie to their ethnic cultural and social value tend to view welfare and government assistance as a temporary measure.</blockquote>


I am relieved you are not that worried about where he takes the country. Skek pointed out in another thread that the politicians have been playing between the 40 yard lines in politics for generations. It is difficult to move the country too far one way or another.



I understand your point about how people become ensnared in entitlement programs. They do. Poorly managed entitlement programs have bankrupted countries and created generations of lazy people. However, I would not go as far as to say "Socialist societies have all failed over the years." There are some very successful socialist societies. For as abhorrent as conservatives find Sweden and the other countries of Scandinavia, the populations of these countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world. The people are completely and utterly dependent upon their government for everything from cradle to grave, but it seems to work for them. They certainly do not believe their society is a failure. I wouldn't want to live there, but then again, I did not grow up in that culture, so I don't fully appreciate its benefits either. Paying 85% income tax would be a drag.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226145711][quote author="bkshopr" date=1226144085][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226109111]BK, That is a moving story, and I see how experiences such as those would give you strong political convictions. I am curious about something implied by the concerns you expressed, do you really worry that Obama and the Democrats will enact policies even remotely similar to Communist China?</blockquote>


I seriously do not think Obama in his 4 years could take this country to the level of erosion that I described. Our founding fathers were too clever in setting up the process governing the presidential election. The check and balance of power and the duration of the presidency were written by geniuses. Voters could be bought so the electoral votes could override the power of the people who might have conspired with an inappropriate presidential candidate like in the case of Chairman Mao in running for the highest office. Even in the case of Mao who might become the president of this country his term was only good for 4 years. The damage is limited.



Various Obama's social programs will improve the quality of life for the poor but will not encourage most of them to step out of poverty. In fact it will create more dependency and decrease motivation to succeed. It is the nature of human to take the path of least resistance. Making more money will disqualify welfare recipients in receiving their welfare benefits so why work harder and get less? I feel strongly this idea was the fundamental evil to old China. Awarding bad behavior (poverty) will only lead to more bad behavior. Those who really did make it out of poverty I applaud them for having "spine". Immigrants in particular tie to their ethnic cultural and social value tend to view welfare and government assistance as a temporary measure.</blockquote>


I am relieved you are not that worried about where he takes the country. Skek pointed out in another thread that the politicians have been playing between the 40 yard lines in politics for generations. It is difficult to move the country too far one way or another.



I understand your point about how people become ensnared in entitlement programs. They do. Poorly managed entitlement programs have bankrupted countries and created generations of lazy people. However, I would not go as far as to say "Socialist societies have all failed over the years." There are some very successful socialist societies. For as abhorrent as conservatives find Sweden and the other countries of Scandinavia, the populations of these countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world. The people are completely and utterly dependent upon their government for everything from cradle to grave, but it seems to work for them. They certainly do not believe their society is a failure. I wouldn't want to live there, but then again, I did not grow up in that culture, so I don't fully appreciate its benefits either. Paying 85% income tax would be a drag.</blockquote>


I'd live there if it wasn't so darned cold brrr :)
 
I don't mind the cold.



I actually applied for some jobs there after finishing my graduate degree.



but there are few jobs in my field there, and lots of well educated and talented people.
 
Scandinavian societies are much more culturally and ethnically homogenious, so social cohesion is easier to achieve. (Scandi countries also rank the highest in suiside rates, but this may have something to do with climate/sunshine)



Checks and balances are all great, but the they haven't been tested by a severe economic calamity. Last time it happened in 1930s socialism was failing yet growing (1938 was the worst year, 5yrs into the New Deal). It took a war to shake the society up. Don't discount a socialist touchdown just yet.
 
[quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226145711]For as abhorrent as conservatives find Sweden and the other countries of Scandinavia, the populations of these countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world. </blockquote>


Sweden voted in a moderate government two years ago because their socialist model is not supportable in the long term



<a href="http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gsm041v1">http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gsm041v1</a>



<blockquote>Yet, despite a strong economic record, healthy pre-election government finances and a manifesto pledge to spend more on public services, the Social Democrats lost to the Alliance for Sweden, the non-socialist coalition, which included the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats. Led by the Moderate Party, the Alliance won by campaigning to maintain the welfare state, while re-shaping it to make it more efficient to survive the pressures of globalisation.</blockquote>
 
[quote author="WestparkRenter" date=1226402841][quote author="IrvineRenter" date=1226145711]For as abhorrent as conservatives find Sweden and the other countries of Scandinavia, the populations of these countries consistently rank among the happiest in the world. </blockquote>


Sweden voted in a moderate government two years ago because their socialist model is not supportable in the long term



<a href="http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gsm041v1">http://pa.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/gsm041v1</a>



<blockquote>Yet, despite a strong economic record, healthy pre-election government finances and a manifesto pledge to spend more on public services, the Social Democrats lost to the Alliance for Sweden, the non-socialist coalition, which included the Moderate Party, the Liberal Party, the Centre Party and the Christian Democrats. Led by the Moderate Party, the Alliance won by campaigning to maintain the welfare state, while re-shaping it to make it more efficient to survive the pressures of globalisation.</blockquote></blockquote>


We play between the 40 yard lines. Sweden plays between the goal line and the 20.



The idea that the socialist model is not supportable in the long term may or may not be true. Sweden is certainly a test case.
 
I tried to stay away but could not. . .



I resepct your experience Bkshp but I beg to differ with your analysis.



Republican China (1911-1949) failed as a result of bad circumstances and bad leadership. It had to revive a country that was ruined by wars and the imperial system. Then its leader (Chiang) became ineffective and paranoid after being kidnapped in 1931 by one of his most trusted advisors. He was focused on keeping his own power and listened to enablers while the country was being invaded by Japan. The KMT became an extremely corrupt organization where the top generals became wealthy while soldiers on the bottom became impoverished and lost morale. Its fall was inevitable.



The first years of the PRC were very beneficial to China and its people. Crop yield increased, diseases were eradicated, and the country had some semblence of order. Then Mao went crazy and paranoid. . .first with the Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226453333]I tried to stay away but could not. . .



I resepct your experience Bkshp but I beg to differ with your analysis.



Republican China (1911-1949) failed as a result of bad circumstances and bad leadership. It had to revive a country that was ruined by wars and the imperial system. Then its leader (Chiang) became ineffective and paranoid after being kidnapped in 1931 by one of his most trusted advisors. He was focused on keeping his own power and listened to enablers while the country was being invaded by Japan. The KMT became an extremely corrupt organization where the top generals became wealthy while soldiers on the bottom became impoverished and lost morale. Its fall was inevitable.



The first years of the PRC were very beneficial to China and its people. Crop yield increased, diseases were eradicated, and the country had some semblence of order. Then Mao went crazy and paranoid. . .first with the Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution.</blockquote>


What I wrote did not endorce Chiang Kai Shek the leader of KMT. When his empire fell he left with his followers to Taiwan (traslation is Fortress by the bay). Neither party was great just like our presidential candidates.



China's Ching Dynasty prior to the republic of 1911 was already weakened 40 years prior to its demise by Empress Dowager's preference for romanticism over defense. She loved beautiful things like Urban park, gardens and architecture. Beijing and Shanghai were her creation and she hired European architects. The country was already in debt over British' opium import (marketed as longevity drug). China could not pay back debt and pawned Hong Kong (a crappy piece of land like Alcatraz for criminals) to the British. Chairman Mao educated in Paris used the masses for his personal political agenda. He was an evil and delusional man.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226453333]I tried to stay away but could not. . .



The first years of the PRC were very beneficial to China and its people. Crop yield increased, diseases were eradicated, and the country had some semblence of order. Then Mao went crazy and paranoid. . .first with the Great Leap Forward and then the Cultural Revolution.</blockquote>


Are you insane? The rise of the PNC was a total disaster and had a negligible impact on agricultural productivity. Only in recent periods, following the end of Mao and the introduction of more capitalist farming has production increased.



http://www.iiasa.ac.at/Research/LUC/ChinaFood/argu/trends/trend_70.htm



Keep in mind that just about every number produced the Chinese government is BS, and never was that more true than when old Mao was running the show.



Socialism is a curse. It is completely at odds with human nature, thus will always fail given time. Unfortunately, the price for acheiving this failure is paid with human misery.
 
This is why I should stayed away . . . oh well here goes.



Between 1949 and 1958 (before the Great Leap Forward), the PRC experienced a great deal of growth both agricultually and industrially. After WWII and the civil war, China was a disaster area. The PRC (are largely without foreign aid) rebuilt the country and establish stability and minimal prosperity. This all changed with the Great Leap Forward. After 1959 (and maybe a little before), Mao's focus was to retain power. The Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a power grab by Mao from the more conservative members of the CCP.



Look, I am no fan of either the PRC or the CCP. Nor do I think socialism is the answer. I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses for capitalism, socialism, marism, or whatever type of -ism at issue. I believe that we should not shun a particulate ideology simply because we are afraid of the extremes. I mean we are seeing capitalism's dark side today.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226568199]This is why I should stayed away . . . oh well here goes.



Between 1949 and 1958 (before the Great Leap Forward), the PRC experienced a great deal of growth both agricultually and industrially. After WWII and the civil war, China was a disaster area. The PRC (are largely without foreign aid) rebuilt the country and establish stability and minimal prosperity. This all changed with the Great Leap Forward. After 1959 (and maybe a little before), Mao's focus was to retain power. The Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a power grab by Mao from the more conservative members of the CCP.



Look, I am no fan of either the PRC or the CCP. Nor do I think socialism is the answer. I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses for capitalism, socialism, marism, or whatever type of -ism at issue. I believe that we should not shun a particulate ideology simply because we are afraid of the extremes. I mean we are seeing capitalism's dark side today.</blockquote>


I think you gotta check you facts. Mao's focus was always to retain power (starting in as a low level CCP operator in the 20s). I posted a link that specifically mentions slow growth in the years following the rise of the CCP.



The Great Leaps were simply a more disastrous extension of failing policies. The big difference between the leaps and prior periods was that massive amounts of food were exported to other communist bloc countries in an effort to secure both military assistance for China and curry favor and establish influence from the CCP (the Soviets were center of all things communist and Mao wanted his share of global power). The massive food exports pushed struggling farmers beyond the breaking point into starvation, thus the great famines accompanied the Leaps. However, that does not indicate that prior periods were prosperous by any means. Rather things just got more miserable with the Leaps.



FTR, I am here to debunk socialism, marxism, and communism. These ideologies were the root cause of more evil and suffering than anything else over 20th century, and this continues today (China, Russia, Venezuala, Cuba, etc.) Anything I can do to open the eyes of others to these evils is worth the effort.
 
[quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1226629310][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226568199]This is why I should stayed away . . . oh well here goes.



Between 1949 and 1958 (before the Great Leap Forward), the PRC experienced a great deal of growth both agricultually and industrially. After WWII and the civil war, China was a disaster area. The PRC (are largely without foreign aid) rebuilt the country and establish stability and minimal prosperity. This all changed with the Great Leap Forward. After 1959 (and maybe a little before), Mao's focus was to retain power. The Cultural Revolution was nothing more than a power grab by Mao from the more conservative members of the CCP.



Look, I am no fan of either the PRC or the CCP. Nor do I think socialism is the answer. I believe that there are strengths and weaknesses for capitalism, socialism, marism, or whatever type of -ism at issue. I believe that we should not shun a particulate ideology simply because we are afraid of the extremes. I mean we are seeing capitalism's dark side today.</blockquote>


I think you gotta check you facts. Mao's focus was always to retain power (starting in as a low level CCP operator in the 20s). I posted a link that specifically mentions slow growth in the years following the rise of the CCP.



The Great Leaps were simply a more disastrous extension of failing policies. The big difference between the leaps and prior periods was that massive amounts of food were exported to other communist bloc countries in an effort to secure both military assistance for China and curry favor and establish influence from the CCP (the Soviets were center of all things communist and Mao wanted his share of global power). The massive food exports pushed struggling farmers beyond the breaking point into starvation, thus the great famines accompanied the Leaps. However, that does not indicate that prior periods were prosperous by any means. Rather things just got more miserable with the Leaps.



FTR, I am here to debunk socialism, marxism, and communism. These ideologies were the root cause of more evil and suffering than anything else over 20th century, and this continues today (China, Russia, Venezuala, Cuba, etc.) Anything I can do to open the eyes of others to these evils is worth the effort.</blockquote>


Sorry, but I do not have the time to go into a debate about 1949-1958 PRC and the efforts of the CCP at this time. We are just going to have to agree to disagree on whether the CCP did or did not do a good job during that time.



I do have challenge you on the Great Leap issue. The biggest problem with the Great Leap was that the PRC tried to do too much at one time and based upon the unrealistic/inferiority complex of the PRC government. The PRC was not contend with slow and steady growth but instead elected to try and catch up to "England in 5 years and the U.S. in ten years" despite the relatively low levels of industrialization in the country at the time. This caused the central government to establish unrealistic goals of food production and industrial output. For example, the central government had the provinces/cadres announce what their food output would be for the following year. As a result, each cadre/province try to outdo each other and promising to deliver completely unrealistic levels of food production (similar to housing prices in the OC in the past 5 years). Then, when harvest time came, the province had to deliver all of the food they promised and left none for the people.



AFter the Great LEap, Mao was pretty put aside by the party and a group (including a young Deng Xiao Ping) of conservative CCP member returned to the pre-Great Leap strategy of slow but steady growth. Mao then launched the Cultural Revolution to bypass the party and go "directly to the people" and thus pushing the country back for another 20 years.



I do not believe that China, Russia, or Cuba are true representations of "socialism". Rather, I seem them more as a various form of oligarchy (and in some cases dictatorships).



Again, I am not adovcating that the U.S. become a socialist country but rather take part of the ideology that would beneficial. I personally believe that universal healthcare and social nets are crucial for the succcess of the U.S. going forward. I believe that capitalism do promote innovation and wealth but it can also lead to class stratification, exploitation, and abuses.
 
[quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226631272][quote author="CapitalismWorks" date=1226629310][quote author="IrvineCommuter" date=1226568199]



I do not believe that China, Russia, or Cuba are true representations of "socialism". Rather, I seem them more as a various form of oligarchy (and in some cases dictatorships).



Again, I am not adovcating that the U.S. become a socialist country but rather take part of the ideology that would beneficial. I personally believe that universal healthcare and social nets are crucial for the succcess of the U.S. going forward. I believe that capitalism do promote innovation and wealth but it can also lead to class stratification, exploitation, and abuses.</blockquote>


And therein lies the problem. You still believe in the idea/ideal of socialism while ignoring reality. Socialism IS what is going on all those terrible places I mentioned.
 
Social reforms in China around 1910-1911 banned serfdom, slavery / hereditary slavery, women's foot binding, eunuchs, polygamy / concubinage, prostitution, and a host of other undesirable cultural practices. The ROC government lacked power to enforce the laws throughout the country, and the PRC government would later claim credit for many of these things. The ROC government was corrupt and unstable, but at its core it's still a constructional republic with elections, guided by Dr. Sun Yat Sen's three principles of the people doctrine. But the elder Chiang and Mao made everyone the casualty to their power struggle.



Chiang Ching-Kuo, aka Nikolai Vladimirovich Elizarov & son of CKS, was trained in the Soviet Union with heavy dose of socialism. During his Presidency in Taiwan, he started many government-sponsored projects (14 constructions, 10 constructions, 12 new developments) that greatly assisted Taiwan's economic development. Hsinchu Science and Industrial Park, CSBC Shipyard, railways, highways, ports, refineries, power plants, etc. were all master-planned and built under his administration.



Is social reforms and "grand government projects" always bad? No. I'm a libertarian at heart and even I would agree that we need public roads and the DMV. Ask any libertarian if he/she thinks if it's OK for anyone to buy a car and drive it on the road, without proof of proficiency in driving. SOME degree of government involvement in the economy and our day to day lives IS beneficial. We haven't evolved to a point where our society can function and prosper without alpha-males/female (leader) roles, code of laws, and government hierarchy. Some day we might, but that day is not today.
 
An example of hit in the only place they really care about: the pocketbook.



<a href="http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/11/25/sixth-circuit-vatican-can-be-sued-for-sexual-abuse/">Nail 'em to the cross</a>
 
<em>?A democracy is always temporary in nature; it cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It will only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.?</em> - A.F. Tytler, Scottish economist, 1747 ? 1814.
 
He probably stole it from:



"When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top