The Great Socialism Gap: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other..

[pknopp]

Socialism is not scary because American capitalism has become little more than an unstable debt trap for the working class. Simple as that.

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

If you want to discuss this without the juvenile name calling that would be great.

I can not say it is name calling because everyone should know this about political/economic systems going in. What the founders tried to imprint on people even with a flaw in its own constitution is that freedom was the reason for it. At the time there was no capitalism or socialism or communism. At least officially. At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights. The rights of the whole. And they most likely will not come back and will be expanded on.

Where did the founders ever dream of a system where an entity can create "wealth" out of nothing to inject into the markets?

 

[peach174]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

 

[martybegan]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

Those are actually more akin to the Bismark Welfare State model that scandinavian countries use, and they have other issues.

 

[Flash]

Socialism is not scary because American capitalism has become little more than an unstable debt trap for the working class. Simple as that.

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

If you want to discuss this without the juvenile name calling that would be great.

I can not say it is name calling because everyone should know this about political/economic systems going in. What the founders tried to imprint on people even with a flaw in its own constitution is that freedom was the reason for it. At the time there was no capitalism or socialism or communism. At least officially. At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights. The rights of the whole. And they most likely will not come back and will be expanded on.

Where did the founders ever dream of a system where an entity can create "wealth" out of nothing to inject into the markets?

You are confused.

Let me explain it to you.

Bill Gates (almost literally) created a business out of his garage. That business did not exist. The government didn't make it happen. He did. He did it without government subsidies or anything.

Nowadays his capitalism has created billions of wealth and jobs for tens of thousands of people in addition to needed goods and services. Also, tons of tax revenue and charity contributions.

That is capitalism. It creates wealth. We all benefit from it. For instance, I am educating you on a software system that was created under capitalism by one of the richest man in the world.

Socialism is the destruction of wealth. Like when that asshole Obama raised taxes and then used the money to provide benefits for Illegal aliens.

It will be more destructive if that clown Commie Bernie takes the money that I make and uses it to pay health care for shitheads too sorry to provide for their own health care. Or to pay for the college education for some idiot college student majoring in something worthless.

 

[pknopp]

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

If you want to discuss this without the juvenile name calling that would be great.

I can not say it is name calling because everyone should know this about political/economic systems going in. What the founders tried to imprint on people even with a flaw in its own constitution is that freedom was the reason for it. At the time there was no capitalism or socialism or communism. At least officially. At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights. The rights of the whole. And they most likely will not come back and will be expanded on.

Where did the founders ever dream of a system where an entity can create "wealth" out of nothing to inject into the markets?

You are confused.

Let me explain it to you.

Bill Gates (almost literally) created a business out of his garage. That business did not exist. The government didn't make it happen. He did. He did it wothout government subsidies or anything.

Nowadays his capitalism has created billions of wealth and jobs for tens of thousands of people in addition to needed goods and services. Also, tons of tax revenue and charity contributions.

That is capitalism. It creates wealth. We all benefit from it. For instance, I am educating you on a software system that was created under capitalism by one of the richest man in the world.

Socialism is the destruction of wealth. Like when that asshole Obama raised taxes and then used the money to provide benefits for Illegal aliens.

It will be more destructive if that clown Commie Bernie takes the money that I make and uses it to pay health care for shitheads too sorry to provide for their own health care. Or to pay for the college education for some idiot college student majoring in something worthless.

We had to "bail out" the capitalists. If not for Socialist back up systems we would have actions like France did in the late 18th century. The Federal Reserve is pumping billions weekly to make sure people can afford their kids education but when one argues that it shouldn't be only a few being able to take advantage of that, you get all upset.

 

[Brain357]

Repubs aren’t freaked out either. Trump is a socialist. Remember the huge socialist bailout for farmers? Remember his strong support for all that Foxconn corporate welfare? Stop kidding yourselves. Trump is all for corporate socialism.

 

[MisterBeale]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

You are ignorant.

What federally owned government industries do Americans accept now?

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How about joining Conservatives like me and advocate doing away with all government transfers of payments? All welfare, subsidies, grants, bailouts and entitlements. We will start twill stopping all those stupid subsidies to the Environmental Wacko industries.

Can you link to a single post where you complained about the subsidies to farmers or to Trump's multiple payments to farmers during the last two years?

 

[Brain357]

Tariffs are socialism. The government trying to control the means of production.

 

[MisterBeale]

Repubs aren’t freaked out either. Trump is a socialist. Remember the huge socialist bailout for farmers? Remember his strong support for all that Foxconn corporate welfare? Stop kidding yourselves. Trump is all for corporate socialism.

Who owned the land?

Who told the farmers what to plant?

Who owned the means of production?



Who stood to make a profit, and who stood to take the loss?



. . . . I have seen a lot of your posts Brain. I know you have had government and econ classes. You can't possibly be this stupid.

"Corporate Socialism" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. It is only Dirigisme. When you look that up, all EDUCATED folks agree, THAT IS STATE CAPITALISM. Even Wikipedia defines it as a type of Capitalism.

 

[pknopp]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

You are ignorant.

What federally owned government industries do Americans accept now?

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

 

[Brain357]

Repubs aren’t freaked out either. Trump is a socialist. Remember the huge socialist bailout for farmers? Remember his strong support for all that Foxconn corporate welfare? Stop kidding yourselves. Trump is all for corporate socialism.

Who owned the land?

Who told the farmers what to plant?

Who owned the means of production?



Who stood to make a profit, and who stood to take the loss?



. . . . I have seen a lot of your posts Brain. I know you have had government and econ classes. You can't possibly be this stupid.

"Corporate Socialism" is an oxymoron. There is no such thing. It is only Dirigisme. When you look that up, all EDUCATED folks agree, THAT IS STATE CAPITALISM. Even Wikipedia defines it as a type of Capitalism.

Trump policy ruined markets with tariffs and then he bailed them out with a socialism bailout. Capitalism does not involve the government picking winners and losers.

 

[Mac1958]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, happier, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

 

[Gdjjr]

At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights

Let's start at the top. Okay? Unalienable rights can't be taken. Inalienable rights can. Inalienable rights eviscerated unalienable rights through the 14th amendment. Inalienable rights are grants and privileges - tangible. Unalienable rights are inherent thus not tangible. Unalienable rights can only be restricted, or ignored e.g. The Homeland Security Act - asset forfeiture laws etc.
Socialist is community owned and organized. A communal effort, with everyone being equal except the more equal as ANY grouping has. Communism is Facist with force of the gov't.

Fascist is state owned everything with Military force enforcing the rules.

A brand of whatever is just a label. D and R "socialism" is the same destination with only a different rate of descent.
The destination? A homogenous easily controlled world of worker bees for the benefit of the banker bees.

 

[Brain357]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

Partisans have a problem with honesty...

 

[Mac1958]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

Partisans have a problem with honesty...

What I don't know for sure -- and for whatever reason, this is a source of great fascination for me -- is whether it's dishonesty or programming.
.

 

[Brain357]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

Partisans have a problem with honesty...

What I don't know for sure -- and for whatever reason, this is a source of great fascination for me -- is whether it's dishonesty or programming.
.

Interesting point.

 

[MisterBeale]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

You are ignorant.

What federally owned government industries do Americans accept now?

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

 

[pknopp]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

You are ignorant.

What federally owned government industries do Americans accept now?

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

 

[peach174]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, happier, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

And every single one of those countries had to scale back government programs and worked with the private sector because it wasn't affordable.
Our freedom from big government does work under bigger government control.

Bernie Sanders wants full socialism of bigger government control over everyone.
The programs he is proposing will bankrupt us just like Venezuela was.
People are leaving bigger government to come here for freedom from, bigger government controlled programs and yet people here in the USA are voting for bigger government control.
Crazy.