"we can't afford it" = nazi talk.

[Hannah Bell]

what with the recession, the list of things "we can't afford" keeps growing.

social security, health care for kids, teachers in florida, detroit, california, auto workers' wages...

the money for these things has supposedly vanished, even though there are resources available, production equipment going unused, labor idle, services desired & things needing to be done...

but "we can't afford" them - because there's no money; money which is simply a social creation. but for want of it, we allow real lives to be destroyed...non-living money has more primacy than real lives; lives don't matter. in fact, we're encouraged to denigrate these lives:

"They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them."

"They shouldn't have taken out credit if they can't pay it back on time."

"They're not worth $30/hour, they're not even educated."

"Why should teachers get pensions when I don't for such easy work anyone can do?"

Money is more important.

It puts me in mind of the nazis' talk of useless eaters, & how those folks were sacrificed to the same kinds of gods.

[cali]

1. what a stretch.

godwined yourself right off the mark.

[Chulanowa]

5. Godwin's law doesn't apply when "Nazi" is relevant

Godwin's Law assumes the context is something like a Hannah Montana fansite or a *chan, not a political discussion board. If you're browsing through your favorite yiffy porn site, looking for something to slake your lust for cub inflation (or, I dunno, reading up on the latest sports, whatever you do in your spare time) and you see some flameburger calling someone a nazi for not liking hermaphroditic unicorn-taurs (okay, maybe showing just a little too much familiarity with this strange subculture...) or for agreeing with a ref's decision... then Godwin's Law applies.

When you're actually talking about Nazi rhetoric as contrasted and compared to modern political events and rhetoric, Godwin's Law does not apply.

Now if you have an actual argument against the OP's point, I'm sure it'll be both scathing and informative. Regale us, please. If your only argument is "lulz u sed nazi" then kindly piss off back to your... sports site :)

[Kitty Herder]

13. ...

:applause: :yourock:

I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels that there is a place for such discussion on a political forum.

[cali]

18. it's not relevant. this is an absurd and overly broad comparison

and the overuse of the word nazi makes the word utterly meaningless. you're a nazi, i'm a nazi, everybody's a nazi nazi.

The not enough money to pay for vital social programs line is clealy not automatically equivalent to nazi policies.

[Hannah Bell]

27. not enough money for blue collar workers. not enough money for kids.

not enough money for old people.

money buys the means of life. if you say there's not enough money for those folks, you're saying their existence is too expensive for "us".

is there enough food? enough shelter? enough heat & electricity? enough people to make those things, service those things?

Then why is there not enough frigging money to exchange those things?

sounds pretty nazi to me.

[cali]

31. really? it just sounds like bad policy to me.

you're playing shock jock. it hardly advances your argument. duh.

[Enthusiast]

40. And ZERO limits on the MIC! nt

[Chulanowa]

36. When it comes to how the Nazis spent money, it IS an apt comparison

Because while the Nazis steadily whittled away at social programs and their safety nets, creating a "eat or be eaten" environment within their nation, they still had lots of money to pour into the Wehrmacht, didn't they? Oh yes. And they had more than enough cash free on hand to build prisons, innovate methods of execution, and all these other "wonderful" things. They could spend millions on pseudoreligious rallies and on pseudoscientific studies showing how North europeans were the master race. But could they spare a few Marks to feed the poor in the streets of Bonn or Hamburg? Nope. They didn't have enough money for that.

The word is only meaningless in the hands of people like yourself who want to isolate it to the point of meaninglessness. If nothing is ever in any way similar to the Nazis, whetehr past, present, or future, then what the fuck is the point of even remembering the bastards ever existed? It's not a sacred cow. It's a historical movement that still have repercussions, adherents, and influence in the modern world. Now if you want to stick your head in a warm, snug little hole and pretend that's not the case, be my guest, but don't try to tell the rest of us to shut up about what is obviously a painfully apt comparison.

[cali]

41. no, it's not. far from it. when the nazis came to power there was

30% plus unemployment in Germany. How did they address that? Largely through Keynesian economic policy. Huge public works programs were instituted. This was under the direction of Schact who was Finance Minister from 1934 to, I believe, 1938. The building of a war economy wasn't something that was much of a factor in the early years of the regime . It wasn't until Goring replace Schacht that the four year plan was introduced and draconian measures were taken to undercut unions. Simultaneously the wealthy were limited to a small investment return. .

During the first few years of the regime unemployment dropped to near zero- that's one of the major reasons there was so much support for the party and Hitler.

It's clear that you're ignorant on the subject. why pontificate and make a fool of yourself on something you know jackshit about?

[islandmkl]

49. here is one of the 'huge public works' instituted in 1936: aid to Franco in the Spanish Civil War...

http://www.janus.umd.edu/Feb2002/spanish%20civ%20war%20tom/01.html

interesting read...

[Hannah Bell]

57. 2 May 1933: Trade unions are abolished and their leaders arrested.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/schools/gcsebitesize/history/mwh/germany/hitlerconsolidaterev_print.shtml


Schacht was an active supporter of the Nazi Party before its accession to power on 30th January, 1933, and supported the appointment of Hitler to the post of Chancellor. After that date he played an important role in the vigorous rearmament program which was adopted, using the facilities of
the Reichsbank to the fullest extent in the German rearmament effort.... On 3rd May, 1935, he sent a memorandum to Hitler stating that "the accomplishment of the armament program with speed and in quantity is the problem of German politics, that everything else therefore should be subordinated to this purpose..."

http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/imt/tgmwc/judgment/j-defendants-schacht.html


After the Nazi takeover of power the re-armament became the topmost priority of the German government. Hitler would then spearhead one of the greatest expansions of industrial production and civil improvement Germany had ever seen.

Third Reich Interior Minister Wilhelm Frick, one of the most influential Nazi figures of the time, and Hjalmar Schacht, a Nazi ecomomist who introduced a wide variety of schemes in order to tackle the effects that the Great Depression had on Germany, were the main key players of German rearmament policies.

Dummy companies like MEFO were setup to finance the re-armament; MEFO obtained the large amount of money needed for the effort through the Mefo bills, a certain series of credit notes issued by the Government of Nazi Germany.<5> Covert organizations like the Deutsche Verkehrsfliegerschule were established under a civilian guise in order to train pilots for the future Luftwaffe.

Although available statistics don't include non-citizens or women, the massive Nazi re-armament policy, almost led to full employment during the 1930s. Real wages in Germany, however, dropped by roughly 25% between 1933 and 1938.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_re-armament

[ooglymoogly]

113. The gist of H/Her argument is correct.

You do not need to know the seeming inconsistencies and topographical mysteries of the world to call it round. Nazi's exist, though I prefer the term totalitarians; They exist in our government, they make policy, they are republicans and republican wannabes. The point here is there is money for war and the rich even while robbing the SS fund and the poor; Yet there is no money for safety nets even though some are solvent (as social security is); But that a totalitarian Government has no use for them. That is the very essence of a totalitarian state. Nazism in Germany created a totalitarian state. They, of necessity begin with relative modesty and ended in the extreme of criminal excess and hell; Killing off the "undesirables" (drains on money that can be siphoned to the ruling elite who control banking and subsequently the war machines). Unbridled capitalism begets totalitarianism and is in the end self immolating. There is a place called heaven and it is somewhere in the middle of socialism and honest and controlled capitalism (not to be confused with the criminal enterprise laughingly calling itself capitalism of today which is a mafia hell.

[Enthusiast]

39. Wrong! It has never been more relevant.

Hitler put the German nation on a war footing through rationing way before the war. They eliminated the 'non-contributers' so they didn't have to waste resources. Nazi words have an exact parallel in today's hate radio proclamations as the OP suggested. Apparently you have never listened to Rush Limbaugh. Words have consequences!

[Confusious]

44. there was never any rationing in NAZI germany

Hitler thought the german people shouldn't have to do without during the war. They still did a good job at war though didn't they?

[cali]

48. wrong. rationing was introduced in 1939.

[Hannah Bell]

66. rationing via wage cuts (dropped 25% 1933-1939) was introduced much earlier.

besides the enforced rationing in the labor camps & the sterilization operations.

[girl gone mad]

108. By all means, don't call it fascism..

even when it closely resembles fascism, because we might overuse the reference.

:sarcasm:

[sendero]

29. Please do some research.

.... your point is completely false.

[cali]

34. no, it's really not. the overuse of the word nazi has reached ludicrous

proportions. And Nazi era germany is something I actually know a little about.

[Chulanowa]

37. I've done lots of research

Is there any point in particular you feel I should research better, or are you practicing for the big test in Vague Internet Admonishments 101?

[natrat]

47. good one

of course, all part of the plan to wipe out the middle class

[anigbrowl]

120. It isn't. The OP is pure flamebait.

[sendero]

132. Godwin's law assumes NO SUCH THING..

.... as a cursory look on the web would show. Your claim about context is UTTERLY FALSE.

[cliffordu]

137. Well....

:rofl:

Ya really got your surfing day worked out there......

[Taverner]

141. W00t!!!! Finally!!!! Someone takes on this knee-jerk "Godwins law!" BS

It seems as if anyone making a point is immidiately tossed to the side if they say "Nazi"

When you're actually talking about Nazi rhetoric as contrasted and compared to modern political events and rhetoric, Godwin's Law does not apply.

DAMN STRAIGHT SKIPPY!

[Occulus]

56. Actually, Cali, you're misusing "Godwin's Law"

I used to say "Godwin can go straight to hell" every time someone brought up "Godwin's Law", but then I went to teh Gooogle and looked it up.

Godwin never said, nor did he imply, that the first person who brings up the Nazis loses the argument. Indeed, there are a great many instances- albeit, not on this thread- in which making a Nazi comparison is perfectly apt.

No, what Godwin did say, and all he said, was that as the length of an internet (or, at the time, Usenet) discussion grows, the greater the probability becomes that a Nazi comparison will be made.

Here's the Wiki on the subject (footnotes removed for readability):

Godwin's Law (also known as Godwin's Rule of Nazi Analogies) is an informal adage created by Mike Godwin in 1990. The adage states: "As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

...

The rule does not make any statement about whether any particular reference or comparison to Adolf Hitler or the Nazis might be appropriate, but only asserts that the likelihood of such a reference or comparison arising increases in direct proportion to the length of the discussion. It is precisely because such a comparison or reference may sometimes be appropriate, Godwin has argued, that overuse of Nazi and Hitler comparisons should be avoided, because it robs the valid comparisons of their impact. Although in one of its early forms Godwin's Law referred specifically to Usenet newsgroup discussions, the law is now applied to any threaded online discussion: electronic mailing lists, message boards, chat rooms, and more recently blog comment threads and wiki talk pages.

While the comparison in the OP is clearly not appropriate, it is important that the "law" be used correctly. However, bringing up Hitler, or the Nazis, in no way causes one to "lose the argument", even if the comparison is invalid.

[cali]

87. true enough. I should have just said that the comparison was absurd.

[Chulanowa]

2. I notice how we "can't afford" things that help people

We can't afford health care. We can't afford housing. We can't afford safety regs. We can't afford education.

But we can afford brand new machines of death and destruction. Holy shit, we can even afford to give them away to our good buddy Rhodesia Israel.
Hell, we can even afford to give AIG execs a five-day five star retreat with all the accouterments!

Oh yes. There's plenty of money out there to kill the poor and protect the rich. Not so much money in protecting the poor and letting the rich buy their own shit.

[Hannah Bell]

6. yes, we're never out of money to give the ruling class. your kids will work to pay off

the debt, & live lesser lives.

children in the third world will die for it.

and all the while: there are resources, idle land, surplus food, idle machinery, idle labor.

But not enough money.

Money is the modern god we sacrifice our children to.

[KakistocracyHater]

119. you're exactly right, "In God We Trust" they ALWAYS point that out

meaning of course indirectly, that they worship money. Prosperity Gospel swindles & all.

I think that rebranding Nazi into totalitarianism may help today's people to emotionally 'get it'. All those bombs, yet school breakfasts cut out. All those fighter planes, yet veterans get budget cuts.

[Echo In Light]

12. Yet there's always more than enough for the almighty War Machine

"Noting trends in military spending, SIPRI added that the massive increase in US military spending has been one of the factors contributing to the deterioration of the US economy since 2001."

http://www.sipri.org/contents/milap/milex/mex_trends.html

http://www.globalissues.org/article/75/world-military-spending#InContextUSmilitarybudgetvsotherUSpriorities

[earth mom]

100. Yep, there's always enough money to kill people & bail out the banks.

But not a dime for health care or humanity.

I am so sick of this shit and I'm so sick of the boot licking apologists on this thread. They are vile. :puke:

p.s. I'm happy to give this thread the 5th rec it deserves to get it to the greatest page.

[notesdev]

3. Oh that evil

mathematics! Telling me I can't keep spending after I'm broke! Fascists!

I can't be out of money, anyway - there are still checks left in my checkbook.

[Hannah Bell]

4. are "we" out of money? how can "we" be "out of money" when "we're"

the creators of money?

[notesdev]

9. You can create money out of thin air, but not value

The Federal Reserve creates money (USD). By doing so, it siphons off a fraction of the value of all other existing USD; no net value is created.

But the kicker is that so much is tied to inflation, that even the raw printing of money doesn't get us out of the mess. Sure you can print, jacking up inflation as a result, but now all the major government obligations are more costly due to those inflation adjustments.

The bottom line is this: as a nation we cannot have new things without producing an equal amount of new value. If cutesy financial games and outright currency manipulation were a path to prosperity, then Zimbabwe would be the wealthiest nation on the planet. This country needs to create real things, the asset bubble game has been played out to its very mathematical limit, and has been found wanting.

[My Good Babushka]

14. Wouldn't another way to create value

be to more fairly assess the value of our work? Like raising the minimum wage!

[Hannah Bell]

15. you certainly *can* create value. in theory, that's why new money is created -

to enable the creation of new value: new production, new productive facilities, new knowledge, etc.

[armyowalgreens]

21. It's a fine balance.

If you produce too much money you devalue it to the point where it becomes useless and then there is a chain reaction seen in places like zimbabwe.

[notesdev]

24. Are we creating value?

The clear answer is no. The bulk of our apparent prosperity over the past two decades has been fueled by increasing levels of debt (now shown to be unsustainable), which in turn led to an asset bubble.

When we bring industry back to our shores and make actual things, then we will be creating new value. We are not doing that; we are not even talking about it. In fact, we have been bailing out company after company that has been shipping value-creating work overseas.

New money does not reflect new value. Buy yourself a printing press, print up "Bell Reserve Notes" to your heart's content, and observe how much actual value your efforts produce.

[Hannah Bell]

61. Then that's the problem, isn't it? Not the amount of money in circulation.

By your own admission, the production of money without value has been going on for some time.

I believe this last bubble economy produced quite a bit.

Putting money into the hands of hands of ordinary people leads to the creation of more real value than putting it into the hands of banksters or the military.

[Kitty Herder]

19. Are we out of "value"?

The farms still produce enough food to feed us. There are buildings sitting empty to house us. Clothing ends up in landfills. We have cars to drive and roads to drive them on. We have endless varieties of drivel to entertain us. There are teachers to teach, philosophers to think, inventors to invent. Etc., etc.

[armyowalgreens]

26. When a business goes under, we are losing a certain amount of value. The economy contracts

We lose value through a myriad of ways.

[Kitty Herder]

35. I'm not talking about "The Economy."

I'm talking about what is real and tangible. "The Economy" as the term is usually used, is basically a term for our method of distributing goods and services. Think outside the box labeled economy for a moment and consider what is real.

[Hannah Bell]

67. yes; so by cutting back on public spending, we can get more businesses to go under.

great solution.

then the surviving capital can buy up those assets cheap, destroy some, & consolidate the rest, & restart the game!

some folks will lose all they have, even die, before things pick up again, but all for a good cause, right?

determining who's king of the antpile of money.

[notesdev]

32. Not yet

but we're headed there on the express train.

Ultimately value is created by the products of industry.

Try to find yourself an American clothing manufacturer. Maybe you can, but you sure won't have an easy time of it - our textile industry got shipped out long, long ago. With autos... where the car is not entirely foreign, it often might as well be, with pre-assembled parts brought here to be put together into a final product. You can go through a long list of industries, many invented here, which are virtually non-existent in the US in 2009.

Perform this experiment: for a month, buy only US-made products. See how much you have to do without.

[anigbrowl]

121. Please put the bong down before posting nonsense like this.

Not only did you go Godwin with your thread title, you're now approaching general fail. Do you waste the time of the clerk at the grocery store with such vapidities? No? Then why ado you insist on acting like a 10 year old here?

[DrDan]

7. it has long been my contention that the main difference between the R's and the D's

is the R's love of money. They cannot bear to part with it - particularly involuntarily, say through taxes.

Their greed know no bounds. They would choose lower taxes over a child's education any day of the week.

[SmileyRose]

8. I'm obviously a nazi

because there is a very long list of things "we can't afford" in my family.

[armyowalgreens]

10. The OP misunderstands economics. You can't pull money from nowhere.

Even if we have man power, you can't pay them with nothing. And you can't manufacture money because it causes the value of our money to decrease.

We live in a system that is made up by society. But that doesn't mean that there aren't rules and restrictions. You cannot simply defy economics and expect everything to be okay.


But that is also why I completely hate the concept of capital. It forces humanity to be turned into a commodity. It puts the values of economics outside the realm of humanity.

[Hannah Bell]

11. we pulled it "out of nowhere" to give to the banksters.

we pull it "out of nowhere" every frigging day.

[armyowalgreens]

16. And we will face the consequences.

I'm not saying that it isn't done. What I am saying is that it will bring a lot of problems. One of them is devaluing our money. When you have more banknotes for the same amount of "wealth", each banknote is worth less. Which means there is less buying power. Which is a big problem.

[Hannah Bell]

20. there are already a lot of problems. because people are running out of money.

[armyowalgreens]

23. Well then let's be very careful in what we do.

I'm not saying that printing more money is always bad. But it needs to be done in moderation and in a method that I do not fully understand.

What we do not want to do is go overboard and turn our money into worthless pieces of paper.

[notesdev]

33. It doesn't come from nowhere!

It comes from your pocket, and mine! We are being stolen from! It is NOT OK just because they do it!

[Cid_B]

17. Well

"They shouldn't have kids if they can't afford them." Agreed

"They shouldn't have taken out credit if they can't pay it back on time." Agreed

"They're not worth $30/hour, they're not even educated." I'm having a hard time thinking of a job that someone with no training or education would make or deserve 30/hr

[stray cat]

22. If I can't afford to give money to someone I'm a Nazi?

[Hannah Bell]

116. no one called you a nazi. no one said anything about individuals or their household budgets.

[cali]

25. Obama = Hitler

really that's the logical extension of this moronic "logic".

[quaker bill]

28. I would no go with Nazi

but I would go with stupid.

I saw some of this the other day in a ltte in our local paper to Grayson's proposal for a paid vacation law. The notion presented was that if paid vacations were required, a company with 1000 folks would layoff 20 folks to pay for it, because "we can't afford it".

This is a stupid conclusion. First, if a business has meaningful and profitable work for 1000 people to do, it will hire 1000 people. If it only has meaningful and profitable work for 950 people to do, but currently employs 1000, it will layoff 50 of them. If it takes 2,080,000 manhours a year to make what they can sell, they will employ 1000 people, within rational limits, wages and benefits do not matter.

Think about it. If it is true that when employees cost more, businesses hire fewer of them, then the corrolary should also be true, when employees cost less, businesses will hire more of them. So according to this faulty logic, if the 1000 employees cut their wages in half, the business would hire another 1000. It won't. If the business needs 2,080,000 manhours a year to produce all the product they can sell, they are not going out and hiring 4,160,000 manhours a year, simply because wages are lower and "they can afford it". In short, a business will hire the people it needs to get the job done and within reason, wage and benefit levels are not relevant. Businesses do not hire people because they have extra money from lower taxes, lower wages, or lower benefits, they hire the folks they need to meet consumer demand. Any other path sooner or later puts them out of business through either waste or low customer satisfaction from poor service.

On the other hand, if one generally cuts wages, then consumer demand will be reduced, because they simply have less money to spend. Odds are far better that a lower levels of wage and benefits, the business will hire fewer people, because with a decline in demand, 2,080,000 manhours a year will no longer be required to meet demand.

We have very nearly killed the economy on this notion of "we can't afford it".

[ContinentalOp]

127. Yep, you just outlined the difference between supply side voodoo economics...

and how the real world works.

[sendero]

30. Nazi talk or not..

... there is plenty this country will no longer be able to afford in the coming years. SS as we know it will not go on, it is simple mathematics.

Maybe if we are really lucky, pointless wars will end also.

[HamdenRice]

38. "we can't afford it" = accountant talk.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[cali]

42. you're clearly a nazi, nazi.

[HamdenRice]

50. Rofl!

That line reminds me of an argument I saw in a club in the 1990s, where one person said to the other, "who are you calling bitch, bitch?!?"

[anigbrowl]

122. I've been broke for a while, so I'm a bigger nazi than either of you.

[Hannah Bell]

59. The same accountants who decide we *can* afford 2 wars & a bankster bailout, I presume.

[hfojvt]

130. more like economist talk

"Economics plays a central role in shaping the activities of the modern world, inasmuch as it supplies the criteria of what is 'economic' and what is 'uneconomic' and there is no other set of criteria that exercises a greater influence over the actions of individuals and groups as well as over those of governments....In the current vocabulary of condemnation there are few words as final and conclusive as 'uneconomic'. If an activity has been branded uneconomic, its right to existence is not merely questioned but energetically denied. Anything that is found to be an impediment to economic growth is a shameful thing, and if people cling to it, they are thought of as either saboteurs or fools." Small is beautiful, Schumacher 1973 pp 40-42

But economics can be coldly, rationally heartless. If there is not enough money, somehow, to feed people who are hungry or to keep people from dying of preventable diseases or from freezing to death, then is there not a potential holocaust, not of people who are actually killed, but of those who are 'allowed to die'?

"If an activity has been branded uneconomic, its right to existence is not merely questioned but energetically denied."

And what if a person is branded 'uneconomic'?

but, of course, accounting is just a little sub-branch of economics


I had to include that last line. Once, in my sophomore quantum physics class, the Professor, Professor Greenlees quipped that "chemistry, of course, is just a little sub-branch of physics" and the roomful of physics majors laughed uproariously at that.

[Octafish]

43. ''We have more will than wallet.'' -- GHW Bush, Jan. 20, 1989

Poppy the NAZI said the same thing, way back when, in order to justify destroying social progress under his "watch."
Weird how he could find the cash to bail out the S&Ls which were looted by his cronies.

Thank you for your excellent post, Hannah Bell.

[Orsino]

45. We can't afford our endless wars of aggression, either.

That's what we say at the Nazi rallies, anyway. :hi:

[Hannah Bell]

60. why are we increasing funding for them, then?

while decreasing funding for the "useless eaters" like kids who need medical care...?

[Lilith Velkor]

94. Wasn't the tax increase on ciggies supposed to pay for that?

Or did all that money go wherever it is that all the other money "for the chillldren" went these past couple of decades?

[Hannah Bell]

97. yes, it was. but "we can't afford" to use it for that. it must be given to the bankster gods.

[Lilith Velkor]

112. Oh, OK. Thought so. All hail the Moloch machine.

[KG]

46. plenty of money for an over-bloated military, tho.

[1955doubledie]

51. It's Scrooge talk, too.

"Are there no prisons?" asked Scrooge.

"Plenty of prisons," said the gentleman, laying down the pen again.

"And the Union workhouses?" demanded Scrooge. "Are they still in operation?"

"They are. Still," returned the gentleman, "I wish I could say they were not."

"The Treadmill and the Poor Law are in full vigour, then?" said Scrooge.

"Both very busy, sir."

"Oh! I was afraid, from what you said at first, that something had occurred to stop them in their useful course," said Scrooge. "I'm very glad to hear it."

"Under the impression that they scarcely furnish Christian cheer of mind or body to the multitude," returned the gentleman, "a few of us are endeavouring to raise a fund to buy the Poor some meat and drink and means of warmth. We choose this time, because it is a time, of all others, when Want is keenly felt, and Abundance rejoices. What shall I put you down for?"

"Nothing!" Scrooge replied.

"You wish to be anonymous?"

"I wish to be left alone," said Scrooge. "Since you ask me what I wish, gentlemen, that is my answer. I don't make merry myself at Christmas and I can't afford to make idle people merry. I help to support the establishments I have mentioned -- they cost enough; and those who are badly off must go there."

"Many can't go there; and many would rather die."

"If they would rather die," said Scrooge, "they had better do it, and decrease the surplus population. Besides -- excuse me -- I don't know that."

"But you might know it," observed the gentleman.

"It's not my business," Scrooge returned. "It's enough for a man to understand his own business, and not to interfere with other people's. Mine occupies me constantly. Good afternoon, gentlemen!"

[earth mom]

101. I'd say there are many people in this country AND on DU that could learn a thing or two from Scrooge

& from the books of Charles Dickens. I love the 1951 movie version of Scrooge with Alastair Sim.

Also, the movie "It's a Wonderful Life" is great lesson for so many of the greedy bastard apologists around here too.

p.s. Good post-Welcome to DU! :hi:

[Javaman]

52. Nice post, Hitler. nt

[LeftishBrit]

53. No - it's 19th century laissez-faire/ Thatcherite/ Reaganite/ generally RW

but not Nazi.

We could perhaps call it 'Scroogean'; the unreformed Ebenezer Scrooge had remarkably similar attitudes, and Dickens was clearly attacking the attitudes of the 19th century British economic right.

Nazism, however,went a step further.

The classical RW-er considers that the right of the already-strong (physically, economically, or by virtue of majority group membership) to advance their position should trump the right of the weak/poor/minority groups to a safety net. If those in a weaker position don't survive - well, too bad, but tough shit; we can't restrict the sacred liberties of the rich and powerful to become even more rich and powerful!

Fascism in all its forms went beyond this to assert that it is a GOOD THING for the poorer and weaker to suffer and perish; that it makes society stronger and tougher; that we should actively seek policies that threaten the survival of the poor and weak, and, at the extremes, that we should kill them.

It's the difference between treating poor people or those who are for other reasons in a weak position as unavoidable economic 'collateral damage' and actively treating them as the enemy to be destroyed. Bad as the former is, the latter is much worse.

[deaniac21]

54. Huh? The Nazi's where massive spenders. wtf

[Hannah Bell]

58. So are we. But "we can't afford" *some* kinds of spending.

[cali]

62. the nazis were keynesian big spenders during the depression

and went from 30% unemployment to near zero unemployment. Your op is utterly ridiculous and fact free.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. One Of The Downright Most Asinine Comparisons I've Ever Heard.

Just completely dumb. Seriously.

[Hannah Bell]

63. Seriously? Tell me, if "we can't afford" Social Security, can old people afford to live?

Since 1/3 depend on it for 90% or more of their income, & 2/3 depend on it for 50% or more?

Either we produce enough to feed, house & clothe the elderly, or we don't. If we do, we can afford Social Security.

If we don't....

[asteroid2003QQ47]

64. Less asinine comparison=We have met the Nazis and they are us!

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html

THE HORRIFYING AMERICAN ROOTS OF NAZI EUGENICS

By Edwin Black

Mr. Black is the author of IBM and the Holocaust and the just released War Against the Weak: Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, from which the following article is drawn.

Hitler and his henchmen victimized an entire continent and exterminated millions in his quest for a co-called "Master Race."

But the concept of a white, blond-haired, blue-eyed master Nordic race didn't originate with Hitler. The idea was created in the United States, and cultivated in California, decades before Hitler came to power. California eugenicists played an important, although little known, role in the American eugenics movement's campaign for ethnic cleansing.

Eugenics was the racist pseudoscience determined to wipe away all human beings deemed "unfit," preserving only those who conformed to a Nordic stereotype. Elements of the philosophy were enshrined as national policy by forced sterilization and segregation laws, as well as marriage restrictions, enacted in twenty-seven states. In 1909, California became the third state to adopt such laws. Ultimately, eugenics practitioners coercively sterilized some 60,000 Americans, barred the marriage of thousands, forcibly segregated thousands in "colonies," and persecuted untold numbers in ways we are just learning. Before World War II, nearly half of coercive sterilizations were done in California, and even after the war, the state accounted for a third of all such surgeries.
<>
Eugenics would have been so much bizarre parlor talk had it not been for extensive financing by corporate philanthropies, specifically the Carnegie Institution, the Rockefeller Foundation and the Harriman railroad fortune. They were all in league with some of America's most respected scientists hailing from such prestigious universities as Stamford, Yale, Harvard, and Princeton. These academicians espoused race theory and race science, and then faked and twisted data to serve eugenics' racist aims.

Stanford president David Starr Jordan originated the notion of "race and blood" in his 1902 racial epistle "Blood of a Nation," in which the university scholar declared that human qualities and conditions such as talent and poverty were passed through the blood.

In 1904, the Carnegie Institution established a laboratory complex at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island that stockpiled millions of index cards on ordinary Americans, as researchers carefully plotted the removal of families, bloodlines and whole peoples.
<>
The Harriman railroad fortune paid local charities, such as the New York Bureau of Industries and Immigration, to seek out Jewish, Italian and other immigrants in New York and other crowded cities and subject them to deportation, trumped up confinement or forced sterilization.

The Rockefeller Foundation helped found the German eugenics program and even funded the program that Josef Mengele worked in before he went to Auschwitz.
<>
Even the United States Supreme Court endorsed aspects of eugenics. In its infamous 1927 decision, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes wrote, "It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…. Three generations of imbeciles are enough." This decision opened the floodgates for thousands to be coercively sterilized or otherwise persecuted as subhuman. Years later, the Nazis at the Nuremberg trials quoted Holmes's words in their own defense.

Only after eugenics became entrenched in the United States was the campaign transplanted into Germany, in no small measure through the efforts of California eugenicists, who published booklets idealizing sterilization and circulated them to German official and scientists.
<>
During the '20s, Carnegie Institution eugenic scientists cultivated deep personal and professional relationships with Germany's fascist eugenicists. In Mein Kampf, published in 1924, Hitler quoted American eugenic ideology and openly displayed a thorough knowledge of American eugenics. "There is today one state," wrote Hitler, "in which at least weak beginnings toward a better conception are noticeable. Of course, it is not our model German Republic, but the United States."
<>
After the war, eugenics was declared a crime against humanity--an act of genocide. Germans were tried and they cited the California statutes in their defense. To no avail. They were found guilty.
< . . .

---------------------------------------------------------------------
"I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it."
--Edith Sitwell

[Nederland]

65. Proof positive that Republicans and Democrats are the same

Both think they can spend money they don't have--the only difference is what they spend it on.

Basic accounting is not a partisan concept.

[dionysus]

74. you could even demonstrate this concept with props, and it wouldn't sink in i'm afraid.

[Hannah Bell]

80. funny how people & governments have been spending money they "don't have"

for centuries, then.

"credit"

not a new concept.

it funded the project of civilization.

[Nederland]

81. Yeah

And misuse of "credit" has absolutely nothing to do with our current economic problems... :eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

82. misuse of credit has plenty to do with them. but it's the "misuse," not the credit.

[Nederland]

98. I see

And the recent budget just passed by a Democratic Congress that involves spending 1.75 trillion dollars that we don't have doesn't constitute "misuse" in your book? And that budget doesn't even start to include that long Christmas list of programs that I'm sure you'd like to see added...

[Hannah Bell]

115. Depends on the items. There's nothing inherently problematic about credit.

[Nederland]

134. I never said that there was

All I'm saying is that our current debt situation means that you are wrong and yes, we really can't afford it.

[dionysus]

68. major godwin fail.

weren't you the one who wanted to give the autoworkers raises with imaginary money?
:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

71. wrong on both counts. rofl icons: the last defense of those who got nothing.

[Alexander]

69. *yawn*

Comparing everything you don't like to the Nazis is a great way of turning people off from your message.

Learn some diplomacy.

[Hannah Bell]

72. from *you,* i suppose.

btw, the nazis didn't immediately start butchering jews.

it's a step-by-step process, softening people up for that sort of thing.

[dionysus]

73. so when do you predict we fire up the ovens? geeze loiuse this is off the wall...

:eyes:

[Hannah Bell]

75. what don't you get about the social consequences of mass unemployment & cutback

of public benefits?

*you* tease out the implications of "we can't afford" those things. is there some alternative means for people to feed, house & clothe themselves but through jobs & benefits?

[dionysus]

76. your silly comparison to nazi germany....

[Hannah Bell]

79. too bad for you, then.

[Alexander]

83. No, too bad for *you*, since no one is taking you seriously now.

Your point might have been worth discussing if not for your asinine Nazi comparisons right off the bat.

[Hannah Bell]

86. you, cali & rice dissent don't constitute "everyone".

[Alexander]

88. You left out at least a dozen other names.

Maybe you have them all on Ignore?

[Hannah Bell]

89. a dozen, eh? count em.

[Alexander]

92. If you insist. I thought you were capable of reading them yourself.

I guess that's too much to ask.

notesdev
"3. Oh that evil

mathematics! Telling me I can't keep spending after I'm broke! Fascists!

I can't be out of money, anyway - there are still checks left in my checkbook."

SmileyRose
"8. I'm obviously a nazi

because there is a very long list of things "we can't afford" in my family."

armyowalgreens
"10. The OP misunderstands economics. You can't pull money from nowhere.

Even if we have man power, you can't pay them with nothing. And you can't manufacture money because it causes the value of our money to decrease.

We live in a system that is made up by society. But that doesn't mean that there aren't rules and restrictions. You cannot simply defy economics and expect everything to be okay.


But that is also why I completely hate the concept of capital. It forces humanity to be turned into a commodity. It puts the values of economics outside the realm of humanity."

stray cat
"22. If I can't afford to give money to someone I'm a Nazi?"

sendero
"30. Nazi talk or not..

... there is plenty this country will no longer be able to afford in the coming years. SS as we know it will not go on, it is simple mathematics.

Maybe if we are really lucky, pointless wars will end also."

Orsino
"45. We can't afford our endless wars of aggression, either.

That's what we say at the Nazi rallies, anyway."

Javaman
"52. Nice post, Hitler. nt"

LeftishBrit
"53. No - it's 19th century laissez-faire/ Thatcherite/ Reaganite/ generally RW

but not Nazi."

deaniac21
"54. Huh? The Nazi's where massive spenders. wtf"

OPERATIONMINDCRIME
"55. One Of The Downright Most Asinine Comparisons I've Ever Heard.

Just completely dumb. Seriously."

dionysus
"68. major godwin fail.

weren't you the one who wanted to give the autoworkers raises with imaginary money?"

Enrique
"78. you mean soup nazis?

or nazi nazis?"

There. A dozen posters who have either ridiculed what you were saying or disagreed with you.

Are we done? Or have I humiliated you enough?

[Hannah Bell]

95. does "disagree" = "not take seriously"?

i'm not a bit humiliated.

i wonder why you waste your time on thing you don't take seriously, though.

[Alexander]

99. When it comes to ridiculous Nazi comparisons, yes.

"i'm not a bit humiliated."

Of course not. You have no shame.

"i wonder why you waste your time on thing you don't take seriously, though."

Because I thought there was a faint glimmer of hope I could get through to you and get you to realize that you will win few supporters by invoking Nazi comparisons right off the bat.

I operated under the assumption that you wanted to persuade people, not turn them off. Apparently that was too much to assume in your case.

[Hannah Bell]

114. if you say so, Webster.

[earth mom]

102. You can say that again. And they will probably shout all over you & post a zillion times

& alert on this thread all over the place to fubar the truth they don't like to hear.

That's what people do when they don't like the message-they attack the messenger.

[fascisthunter]

107. weird... I noticed that too

[Alexander]

84. Well, I guess you're a Nazi then, since you attack anyone who disagrees with you.

How dare they. :eyes:

BTW, the Nazis didn't immediately silence all dissent.

It's a step-by-step process, softening people up for that sort of thing.

Maybe now you will see how absurd your comparison is, but I doubt it.

[Hannah Bell]

85. argument is not attack on the person. there's your first misperception.

among others.

nor is argument the silencing of dissent. neither i, nor anyone else, is preventing you from dissenting with my opinion. arguing against your view is not attacking *you,* nor is it silencing you.

if you think so, you have to concede then that you were the first to attack *me,* to try to silence *me*. i voiced my opinion & you *attacked* me! oh no!

[Alexander]

90. Yeah, you got nothin'. Thanks for playing anyway.

Even though you can't factually compare the current situation to Nazi Germany for the life of you, anyone who disagrees with you has to be wrong, evil or trying to suppress your opinion. Gee, that sounds familiar.

You aren't even capable of considering that your point would be taken much more seriously without such a hyperbolic comparison. And you have ignored the multitudinous responses in this thread from people who are disputing your rantings or just plain laughing at you.

I think they can treat your condition with medication.

[Hannah Bell]

91. i didn't accuse anyone of trying to supress my opinion: you did.

nor did i attack you personally; you did.

so tiresome, this projection.

[Alexander]

93. Yet you jump down the throats of anyone who disagrees with you.

A rational and reasonable debater you are not.

Of course, you couldn't possibly be responsible for the tone of discussion based on your use of the "Nazi" cudgel in your OP, could you?

No, of course not.

So tiresome, your delusional ramblings.

[Hannah Bell]

96. to debate is not = to "jump down throat". if they're so tiresome, you don't need to pay attention.

yet you do.

"someone on the internet is *wrong*"

oh noes!

i calls em as i sees em, bub. i think the "we can't afford it" stuff = nazi talk.

so far i haven't heard many credible arguments against the premise, & just a bunch of ad hom from your contingent.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

105. Thanks to Edwin Black, Hannah doesn't HAVE to "factually compare the...situation to Nazi Germany"

Break out of your comfortable tunnel/well of denial and give it a read.

The Horrifying American Roots of Nazi Eugenics
By Edwin Black

http://hnn.us/articles/1796.html
----------------------------------

Alexander the Frog and Hannah the Sky

There is an argument between a bird who stopped to drink at a well and a frog therein. They were arguing about how the sky looked like. Regarding where they were, they each had a different view. The frog's vision was of course very limited. Therefore, this proverb refers to somebody who has a very narrow-minded and insulated view of what they see or what they think.

[bottomtheweaver]

135. Operation Paperclip recruited 1,600 top Nazi scientists into the CIA.

"As the Cold War deepened, Operation Overcast became Operation Paperclip when it was finally given official approval by Truman in 1946.

"Paperclip was a systematic programme to recruit any scientists and technicians that might be of use to the US. But not all of the ex-Nazis would be as welcome in the land of the free as Von Braun.

"Men like Walter Schreiber, who had authorised experiments on holocaust victims, were chased out of the country in the 50s as the press began to expose the nastier side of the relocation programme.

"Undoubtedly, Operation Paperclip was a success in terms of the military advances, code-breaking achievements and general scientific excellence the 1,600 men and women who were recruited went on to contribute.

"However, as time has passed and more details of the dark side of this research have emerged, the moral and ethical implications, as well as some of the practical applications of these advances have spawned several conspiracy theories. Many of the men recruited from Germany to work in the US were complicit in murder and torture."

http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/thegrassyknoll/2009/03/operation-paperclip---a-fourth.html

What price have we paid for the success of a few banks, corporations, and investors? :shrug:

[Lydia Leftcoast]

70. Yet somehow there's ALWAYS money for wars

Funny thing, that.

[Romulox]

77. War Machine got a nice "little" bump in the last budget, though! nt

[Enrique]

78. you mean soup nazis?

or nazi nazis?

[deaniac21]

144. No soup for you!

[earth mom]

103. Thanks for speaking the truth even though the attack dogs are out in full force.

They are nothing more than boot licking apologists. :puke:

[cali]

109. aren't you the little totalitarian. disgusting. that anyone who disagrees with you

or what YOU deem to be the truth are nothing but attack dogs and bootlicking apologists. It's that sick as shit mentality that kills people.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

128. "dog, I hate stupid." Self-hating people often become, depressed, viciously and uncontrollably angry

Cure for Self-Hate
http://net-burst.net/help/self-hate.htm
---------------------------------------

"The puzzle at the heart of BPD
is one that you can solve."
--A.J. Mahari

[earth mom]

140. NO-it's lies and deception and blind faith that kills people. But you know that & don't give a damn.

I also find it funny how you project your behavior on me. I would find it hilarious if it wasn't so damned pathetic.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

110. Envision the DU attack dogs in this thread

:rofl:

[Hannah Bell]

117. they're so scary!

[anigbrowl]

124. See #71

[anigbrowl]

123. While in the other corner...

[asteroid2003QQ47]

129. A sincere thank you.

"Man has lost the basic skill of the ape, the ability to scratch its back. Which gave it extraordinary independence, and the liberty to associate for reasons other than the need for mutual back-scratching."

--Jean Baudrillard

"ORLY"

Your concept or perception of reality is not reality. When you are caught in your perceptions and ideas you lose reality.
--Thich Nhat Hanh

:rofl:

[newinnm]

104. I agree

I couldn't have thought of a better way to get this point across.

:sarcasm:

nnnm

[fascisthunter]

106. well said

:thumbsup:

"It puts me in mind of the nazis' talk of useless eaters, & how those folks were sacrificed to the same kinds of gods."

The Nazis couldn't recognize humanity, so they looked at people like were numbers... who else does that?

[and-justice-for-all]

111. We could afford all of it if they would stop the warmongering..

imperialism bullshit!

Close a majority of those global military bases and we would HAVE THE MONEY! Cut the war mongering funds too, that would be a start.

[Greyhound]

118. K&R, So true, though you can insert any number of parasite class warriors rather

than the dreaded and forbidden nazis.

Just look at how they jumped all over that one with the glee of a six year old on Christmas morning.

Oh, and what EarthMom said, too.
:kick: & R

[leftstreet]

125. They rely on us turning on each other, rather than turning on them

That's their strategy

K&R

[bottomtheweaver]

126. "They bought more house than they could afford."

I love that one. And yes, if Halliburton, AIG or some other corporate predator needs a few hundred billion or a troublesome liability demolished, the entire apparatus of government drops everything and runs to the rescue, pulling any number of trillions out of thin air. But let a company with taxpaying workers or a health program for the elderly come up short and it's straight to the chopping block.

[Lorien]

131. We've bought more war than we can afford

but that doesn't seem to stop us, does it? Just put it on the ol' government credit card!

[shadowknows69]

133. Never any lack of it for the Pentagon though it seems.

[HamdenRice]

136. Goodwin's law affirmed in one move!

According to Wiki, you already lost your argument in your subject line:

"For example, there is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. "

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[bottomtheweaver]

138. "Operation Paperclip - A Fourth Reich?"

http://blogs.sundaymercury.net/thegrassyknoll/2009/03/operation-paperclip---a-fourth.html

If it makes you feel better, don't call them Nazis, call them assets.

[Hannah Bell]

142. wiki & internet news groups are the new debate arbiters?

ps: bell's law: the credibility of the argument declines in proportion to the number of rofl icons.

[asteroid2003QQ47]

145. Interesting take on Godwin's law and those who quote it.

>Quite simply, anyone on usenet who remembers Godwin's law and quotes
>it as received wisdom must be wrong, as all received usenet wisdom is
>obviously wrong, since the people with the time and inclination to
>post to usenet and spread such information are clueless morons who
>can't get anything right and who always shout down the people who know
>what they are talking about. Those few knowledgeable people then
>leave, embittered, to write books to put their points of view across
>(other than those usenet-like computer books with shelflives of less
>than three months, of course).
http://www.xent.com/FoRK-archive/mar98/0250.html

Kudos to Hannah, one of the few few knowledgeable people here, for staying the course!

[rucky]

139. Closer to your real point...

Everybody accepts that governments can't afford everything they want, so there's prioritization involved. It seems, though, that in the USA, this prioritization process does not take human suffering into consideration as much as other developed countries.

They view expenditures purely from a cost-accounting perspective (and other corporate-like influences). At the same time, there are things like war and bailout that are funded without strings. So "we can't afford it" is indeed a bogus arguement. We should be asking "how does this improve quality of life for our citizens?" - when we prioritize both spending and cuts. The closer to essential the program is for life or quality of life, then the more priority it gets. All the fearmongering used to prioritize pork-barrel programs understands this, and exploits it. When it's something they want, at least. You only hear "we can't afford it" if a proposal appears to directly help the suffering.

So, yes, Nazi is an apt comparison to the inhumanity of that bullshit "we can't afford it" excuse - in that particular context.

[PufPuf23]

143. "we can't afford it" = class warfare talk

Is this better?

Das we are so programmed to be against each other.

In theory we each own an equal portion of the Nation and the government.

In practice this is not true.

Military/Corporate Empire trumps populism Das.

"We" are one of the least free modern western industrial nations now.

Personal security and opportunities are ever diminishing.

The moral bearing of a society is the treatment of the weak.

POTUS Obama is our best choice but his influence is limited by situation.

Crossing my fingers and toes for the best.