It's Official!! Liberal Democrats are Socialists!!

Discussion in 'Politics' started by ThomasPaine, May 22, 2005.

  1. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    As Howard the Dean said this Sunday morning on Meet The Press. When asked by Tim Russert if he would support Bernie Sanders' run for Senate in Vermont, Dean replied he would. When Tim Russert countered that Sanders was a self avowed Socialist; Quote from Sanders "I will be running as an independent," Sanders said in a telephone interview. "But if you're asking my philosophy, yes, I am a Democratic socialist", Dean smiled and said "Bernie is a liberal Democrat". So there you have it.. Dean has confirmed what most knew all along. Liberal Democrats are Socialists... :)
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. freeandfun1
    Offline

    freeandfun1 VIP Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2004
    Messages:
    6,201
    Thanks Received:
    295
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Ratings:
    +296
    It's nice to see that these socialists are finally emerging "out of the closet". I hope they are feeling better about themselves now! They can't help it, they were born that way....
     
  3. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Nope, we can't ;). Honestly what's so bad about Democratic Socialism? It supports a very broadly capitalist system with only a few minor social elements to make the system more humanitarian, and even advocates that we should cut some taxes and cut some welfare programs.

    Edit: Read through the entire thread before you post about this, because it is likely you have many misconceptions about Democratic Socialism like thinking it supports a Welfare State.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Honestly, because redistribution of wealth just does not work. I will be the first to agree with JPII that capitalism tends to be rough on many. It is. It also is the reason that nearly everyone from the working poor up work so hard here, they know they can do better or help their children do so.

    I wouldn't want to be in Germany right now, well ever, but especially right now.
     
  5. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Ah, but social democrats are against the welfare programs that allow people to be lazy. Like how Clinton eliminated welfare handouts, but supported using government money to provide transportation to work for people who would be otherwise unable to afford it, and who need that transportation to work. Sweden has a socialist system and manages to have a higher standard of living than the US.

    An extreme distribution of wealth, such as the top 1% own 99% doesn't work out either, because it creates a whole host of social and stability problems. Where does that leave systems that create that kind of wealth distribution? The redistribution works out if it doesn't support programs that make people lazy, as Sweden can show.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Sweden is more of a 'everyone is at the same level' than here. It also has a relatively homogeneous population, which is by any definition, small. World leader, no!

    http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/index.html

     
  7. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    I happen to think the larger the economy, the less efficient socialism is. Some of the welfare concepts that work elsewhere will not work here. However, if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources, which operate largely under a free market framework, we won't have a problem. I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck. If you create programs for people who work hard yet whose income falls in a certain low range (because of luck), then if all success needs is hard work, nobody will be on the programs and you can cut them out after several years :).

    What is more likely though is that these programs provide a security for people to go and create business ventures from their personal funding, and if they work hard and fail they need not fear starving to death. These programs would help increase upward mobility because people would have the means to take risks, and innovation and social mobility are key to a free market system. The programs would be a transitional phase, able to help people go from "if at first you don't succeed, you're screwed" to being able to "try, try again."
     
  8. gaffer
    Offline

    gaffer Member

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2004
    Messages:
    258
    Thanks Received:
    44
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Location:
    Ohio
    Ratings:
    +44
    Hitler was a socialist

    Stalin was a socialist

    Moa was a socialist

    Mussolini was a socialist

    Tito was a socialist

    Pol Pot was a socialist

    Ho Chi Minh was a socialist

    Castro is a socialist

    lil kim is a socialist

    Capitalism is always looking for a profit, socialism is always lookingto control.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  9. IControlThePast
    Offline

    IControlThePast Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2005
    Messages:
    470
    Thanks Received:
    21
    Trophy Points:
    16
    Ratings:
    +21
    Hitler fascist

    Stalin communist

    Moa communist

    Mussolini fascist

    Tito communist

    Pol Pot communist

    Ho Chi Minh communist

    Castri communist

    Kim Jong-il communist

    Communism is much different than Democratic Socialism. In Communism the state controls the means of power, and nothing is privately owned. Individuals control the means of power in Democratic Socialism.
     
  10. ThomasPaine
    Offline

    ThomasPaine Active Member

    Joined:
    May 17, 2005
    Messages:
    399
    Thanks Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +66
    is "if we create programs that don't diminish motivation from wealth redistribution funding sources". There's the rub isn't it. Socialism invites diminished motivation. Why take that somewhat low paying job that will probably lead to a potential career if the welfare state's entitlement "pays" better? Socialism is the growth killer. Both for the person and the nation. Your next statement "I think that hard work is integral to success for many people, but monetary success is achieved through a combination of work and luck" is just complete balderdash. The only people I've heard of getting "lucky" to achieve wealth are those that hit the lottery.. Hard work and perserverance are the cornerstones of success. Luck has nothing to do with it. It's the Socialists beliefs, coupled with their backing the losing side in the culture war coming out ot the 60's, that are killing the Democratic Party. If the Dem's wish to return to majority status, a condition I do not forsee in the near future, they had better moderate their Socialism and dump completely the hedonistic nihilism that dominates their cultural perspective.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page