OPM chief shrugs off calls for her resignation after hacking

[Formaldehyde]

"Liberal" and "socialist" are slurs in the US. Socialist has been that way forever. Liberal was added to the list about the time Reagan become president, as the Democratic Party started sliding farther and farther to the right to try to keep pace with the movement of the Republican Party.

Now, only about 20% of the country even identifies with being liberals and an incredibly tiny fraction identify as socialists. The liberals no longer have any viable political power in this country, even though the Democrats try to woo them to vote for their candidates instead of wasting their vote on the Green Party, or whatever. But you certainly wouldn't know that to hear most any Republican talk. Many of them think most all Democrats are liberals, even though the vast majority of them are conservatives and moderates.

Obama is an excellent example. He started out as a moderate who was slightly authoritarian. But he has now become an authoritarian conservative. The only reason the Republicans don't notice is because they are even more conservative and authoritarian for the most part. Many of them think he is a liberal and some even think he is a socialist.

 

[Berzerker]

No it is not. The US government does not see it like that either. They indicate that Social Security is primarily the Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability insurance federal program. In other words, they see it as social insurance.

Old age, yeah... Survivors, of course, and disability - how is that different from a pension?

 

[IglooDame]

Because they have said so? Because the Chinese didn't sneak into a properly secured building and steal it without anybody even noticing? It is relatively easy these days to create properly secured systems the Chinese, or anybody else, can't break into. But, of course, they are still susceptible to an American with the proper clearances to steal it for them, which is the same way we steal their properly secured secrets.

The bolded part is factually incorrect.

So it is your contention that the truly secure military and government systems, which are not connected to the internet for obvious reasons, can be hacked by the Chinese?

Source?

No, it is my contention that building and maintaining these "truly secure" systems separate from the internet are not "relatively easy to create". And beyond that, creating a new system of that architecture is still a less difficult project than pulling an existing system and not substantially reducing the functionality of the system.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I suggest you actually read this thread to indeed see that is "factually incorrect".

 

[MacAttack]

If you actually define socialism with an actual definition of socialism, then no liberals will be offended. The offense comes when you define socialism without bothering with an actual definition of socialism.

Liberalism and socialism simply do not have anything to do with one another. They never have, and they never will. So if you are associating them together, then the only reason to do so is to deliberately be insulting.

Yet Liberals are offended when you actually define socialism. Like Formaldehyde said, it has such a negative connotation, nobody wants to be associated with it. Modern liberals has adopted many of the ideals of classical socialism. Classical Liberalism is more related to libertarianism, it's no coincidence that the classically liberal party that Abe Lincoln was a part of is now considered the staunchly conservative party that is shifting to libertarianism. Shoot, the term Liberalism has been hijacked (by Leftists) to the point we had to adopt a new name for its classical ideals of Liberty, ergo Libertarianism.

Well, if Dachs still posted here, he would remind you that Chancellor Bismark created social programs which were far to the 'left' than anything Democrats in the United States have ever managed to create. And he was extremely an example of conservatism.

It is well documented (see the Kulturkampf) that he was adopting many socialist ideals to hold his empire together, while simultaneously trying to eradicate it. That had unintended consequences. Socialism was gaining popularity in Germany. The reason he and the German monarchs were so opposed to it, is because at the heart of it, required the monarchy to be abolished. Just because you are traditionally a conservative, does not preclude you from adopting other ideologies' programs.

You don't seem to understand the difference between capitalism and socialism. The New Deal was explicitly anti-socialist. It was explicitly for the purpose of defeating socialism. It was explicitly for the purpose of protecting capitalism and making capitalism work.

All of these things you label 'socialist' have no existence outside of the opposition to socialism.

Then why was the NEW DEAL opposed by so many conservatives? They saw the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it more efficient. That one was easy to find.

Honestly, I don't think you do my friend. And I lament that you still see the definition through the prism of McCarthyism. You guys embody it. I really doubt you'd be able to tell me the difference between Socialism, Communism and Populism.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Are you really asking why conservatives were so upset that the US government was promoting unions?

The New Deal was not an attempt to turn the US into an evil socialist state. It was an attempt to address the Great Depression by creating jobs while protecting the ones that still existed, as well as to put regulations in place to try to assure it would never happen again.

In fact, Eisenhower left much of the New Deal intact. And so did Nixon. It wasn't until 1974 that both parties tried to deregulate the economy with disastrous results. And the deregulation of the banking industry didn't occur until the 90s, again with disastrous results. The SEC itself is a New Deal program, and so is the FDIC. But you don't hear anybody but the real economic extremists who want to get rid of either one of them even now.

 

[MacAttack]

I never ever said that The New Deal was an attempt to turn the US into an evil socialist state. I don't appreciate that. That is poor debating on your part, sir.

I've spent many posts on here trying to say that socialism is not evil for goodness sake! GAH!

 

[Formaldehyde]

Sorry. I wasn't insinuating you were. I was referring to how many conservatives saw it then and continue to do so. They are the ones who spread the notion that the New Deal and Social Security are socialism every chance they get. Most everybody else disagrees with them.

Do you really think every single Republican president since then has not ended these programs because they are actually socialism? The Democrats have also not tried to do so despite being nearly just as conservative for the most part since the Reagan years.

Now let's talk about your own statements:

Yet Liberals are offended when you actually define socialism.

Modern liberals has adopted many of the ideals of classical socialism.

Should I also get offended now? Go right ahead and even try to define socialism so it includes social programs.

Never mind that liberals literally have little or no political power anymore. How exactly is 20% of the population forcing 80% to accept their "socialism". We can't even get Congress to pass a law protecting homosexuals from being discriminated against, just like the handicapped, women, and blacks now supposedly are.

 

[El_Machinae]

So, if socialism is getting the means of production into the hands of citizens, what would be "getting the output of production into the hands of citizens"?

Social security is definitely wealth redistribution, since it's a real-time transfer.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Social security is supposed to be an insurance benefit program which is paid for by individual contributions as well as employer contributions.

The fact that the revenue stream would not cover the benefits to be paid out with the population increase from the baby boomers is a matter of historical record dating back to the 70s. Yet the issue continued to be largely ignored for decades.

Then Reagan literally raided the Social Security revenue to pay for his own government programs without having to raise taxes nearly as much as he otherwise would have. This has become standard practice since then.

Every single advanced country has a similar program. It is an inherent necessity under a free enterprise / capitalistic society. So either all modern democratic forms of government are socialistic in nature, or it is just so much nonsensical propaganda promulgated by the conservatives as an excuse to try to pay even less taxes than they now do.

I have paid well over $100,000 into SS and Medicare. If that money had been invested in even a modest savings account it would be worth millions today. This isn't something that is a "real time" "wealth distribution" at all. It is what is owed to me by my government just like any other insurance/pension program. But I'll never come close to being able to receive full payment from those deductions and the interest they would have accrued unless I live to be hundreds of years old.

 

[El_Machinae]

Keep gubmint hands off your medicare, amirite?

No, of course it's real-time wealth redistribution. Your money isn't put into a kitty and then given back to you. It's taken and spent in economically beneficial (and less beneficial) ways. Other people will then be taxed to pay you back.

If people had been forced to save that money instead, we'd have the grand daddy of stock bubbles right now due to the baby boomers.

 

[Berzerker]

isn't that true for insurance and pensions?

 

[El_Machinae]

A subset can be run that way. But you're not 'forced' to contribute.

 

[Cutlass]

Yet Liberals are offended when you actually define socialism. Like Formaldehyde said, it has such a negative connotation, nobody wants to be associated with it. Modern liberals has adopted many of the ideals of classical socialism. Classical Liberalism is more related to libertarianism, it's no coincidence that the classically liberal party that Abe Lincoln was a part of is now considered the staunchly conservative party that is shifting to libertarianism. Shoot, the term Liberalism has been hijacked (by Leftists) to the point we had to adopt a new name for its classical ideals of Liberty, ergo Libertarianism.

You see the problem here is that you accept the terms of argument of those people who want to discredit liberalism as factually correct without ever having learned of anything of the subject yourself to make up your own mind. Modern liberals have defeated socialism. There isn't any part of it that they have adopted. Claiming so just means that you don't know what either of them are.

Modern conservatives and libertarians reject classical liberalism. The modern liberal is the heir of the classical liberal. Because classical liberalism is based on reason. Conservatism and libertarianism are just emotional gut reactions with no evidence.

It is well documented (see the Kulturkampf) that he was adopting many socialist ideals to hold his empire together, while simultaneously trying to eradicate it. That had unintended consequences. Socialism was gaining popularity in Germany. The reason he and the German monarchs were so opposed to it, is because at the heart of it, required the monarchy to be abolished. Just because you are traditionally a conservative, does not preclude you from adopting other ideologies' programs.

That's what modern liberalism is. The adoption of policies to protect an inherently conservative system.

Then why was the NEW DEAL opposed by so many conservatives? They saw the entire New Deal as an enemy of business and growth, and liberals accepting some of it and promising to make it
more efficient. That one was easy to find.

Because they are conservatives. And conservatism is at heart about the maintenance of traditional power. Having government intervene in the economy is a threat to the power of the elite.

Honestly, I don't think you do my friend. And I lament that you still see the definition through the prism of McCarthyism. You guys embody it. I really doubt you'd be able to tell me the difference between Socialism, Communism and Populism.

Socialism is the public ownership of the means of production. Something liberals do not want. Communism is more extreme down that path, with the very idea of ownership of the means of production gone. Populism has nothing to do with either. Populism is just governance by the will of the majority, whatever that might be.

Liberalism is the use of government and reason to correct the flaws in a market economy system so that it benefits all of the people, and not just the elite. But if you continue to refuse to accept actual definitions of terms as, you know, actual definitions of terms, then you make conversation impossible.

If you are defining liberalism as socialism, then you are not speaking the English language. And as that is the only language I speak, I can't communicate with you.

 

[Ajidica]

Cutlass, any reason you seem averse to the label of Social Democrat?
"Liberalism" is wrapped up in so much baggage it can feasibly be used to describe any first world -most second world, and a few third world- countries.

 

[Cutlass]

Cutlass, any reason you seem averse to the label of Social Democrat?
"Liberalism" is wrapped up in so much baggage it can feasibly be used to describe any first world -most second world, and a few third world- countries.

Not necessarily opposed to the phrase. But it's really never been used in the US, and so has no connections here. Few people would have any real idea what you mean.

The 'baggage' that liberalism has in the US is all manufactured hate. It's all based on false accusations to demonize and dehumanize people. I stick to it because it is the correct definition, in accordance to how the term has been used from the start.

 

[Samson]

The 'baggage' that liberalism has in the US is all manufactured hate. It's all based on false accusations to demonize and dehumanize people. I stick to it because it is the correct definition, in accordance to how the term has been used from the start.

I find it amazing that this demonisation has happened, in a country that is into freedom, to a word that literally means [an advocate of|advocating] freedom.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Keep gubmint hands off your medicare, amirite?

No, of course it's real-time wealth redistribution. Your money isn't put into a kitty and then given back to you. It's taken and spent in economically beneficial (and less beneficial) ways. Other people will then be taxed to pay you back.

If people had been forced to save that money instead, we'd have the grand daddy of stock bubbles right now due to the baby boomers.

Again, that is merely due to implementation details, especially since Reagan decided to raid the SS cookie jar for political reasons. And it hasn't stopped since.

It isn't difficult at all to operate an insurance / pension fund so that it doesn't go bankrupt. Every single local, state, and federal government employee in the US has a very nice pension fund which makes SS look like a sick sadistic joke.

I find it amazing that this demonisation has happened, in a country that is into freedom, to a word that literally means [an advocate of|advocating] freedom.

That is because the vast majority of conservatives are authoritarians.

 

[Samson]

That is because the vast majority of conservatives are authoritarians.

Yet seem happy to proclaim with pride that they live in the land of the free? Sometimes I just do not understand people.

 

[El_Machinae]

Many people have authoritarian tendencies, but we tend to pick sides in political debates.