CDZ What Socialist Policies in the U.S. Have Ever Worked?

[WelfareQueen]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

 

[WelfareQueen]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

 

[bluzman61]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Nope. You are correct in asserting that Socialist Policies HAVE never worked in this country. And Socialism has NEVER been successfully implemented for an extended period at ANY time in modern history or in ANY country or civilization. In short, Socialism absolutely SUCKS. Thank you.

 

[alang1216]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

The vast majority of roads in this country are owned by the public. Socialism that works. The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

You defined those programs as socialism, not me.

They are not money making endeavors. They were meant to be paid for by taxes all along. The problem is we keep cutting taxes on the folks who should be paying the most and trying to shift the burden to those who should be paying the least.

 

[WelfareQueen]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

The vast majority of roads in this country are owned by the public. Socialism that works. The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

The public highway system has generally been a good thing. Point taken. However, private contractors built 99.9% of it, which is probably the only reason it works.

The military command structure works very well. That is not communist. That structure existed long before communism and has a large degree of accountability which communism, which is a system that is always run by oligarchs never does.

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

You defined those programs as socialism, not me.

They are not money making endeavors. They were meant to be paid for by taxes all along. The problem is we keep cutting taxes on the folks who should be paying the most and trying to shift the burden to those who should be paying the least.

No. Progressives have defined those programs as socialist for decades. However, my question remains: Were those socialist programs intended to lose trillions, because they have. They all are highly inefficient and generally work poorly. Is that socialism?

 

[alang1216]

The public highway system has generally been a good thing. Point taken. However, private contractors built 99.9% of it, which is probably the only reason it works.

The military command structure works very well. That is not communist. That structure existed long before communism and has a large degree of accountability which communism, which is a system that is always run by oligarchs never does.

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance. That is the correct role for government. The gov't owns the electromagnetic spectrum and allocats bands for different use. It does not need to be an cell phone company, it just needs to set cell phone standards. That is Socialism too.

You mean there was communism before someone coined the term? As for accountability, it has its own set of issues there. Ask most female soldiers what they think.

 

[Penelope]

Tax breaks for the wealthy, socialism its called, it called what republicans and tramp are doing to the economy.

 

[Crepitus]

Progressives have defined those programs as socialist for decades.

Absolutely untrue.

 

[Crepitus]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

 

[WelfareQueen]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

 

[Agit8r]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

The US Postal Service is socialism? I guess the founding fathers must have been socialists

In all seriousness though, the things you mention are not socialism. They are simply government intervention.

Amtrak now does functions that were once the chartered obligations of the railroad corporations. See, the federal governemnt gifted land to these companies, which the companies were then able to use as security for loans, which the railroad tycoons alternately used for either legitimate railroad building or to feather their own person nests (Credit Mobilier, etc). But a century later, congress--in it's infinite corruption--relieved the railroads of the chartered obligation of carrying passengers, and created Amtrak to take its place.

 

[Crepitus]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

 

[Agit8r]

And the Post Office (which is funded by postage rates, btw) would be profitable, if it didn't have to pre-pay 75 years ahead:

How Congress Manufactured a Postal Crisis — And How to Fix it

An unprecedented congressional mandate threatens the Postal Service's ability to continue to provide good jobs and universal service.

ips-dc.org

 

[Agit8r]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I have news for you, air polution costs we the people a great deal. For 200,000 people a year, it costs them their life.

 

[WelfareQueen]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

Thank you. So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

 

[Crepitus]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

Thank you. So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

Thank you for admitting you're doing the labeling.

Is someone trying to tell you that medicare for all will make a profit?

 

[alang1216]

So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

No, they are social programs. They don't convey the means of production to the gov't they are the governments attempt at shaping the future of America. You may or may not approve of that future, that is your right.

A case can be made for the long-term cost savings of the Green New Deal but I'll leave that to others. There is a strong case that Medicare for all will result in major cost savings to consumers, depending on how it is implemented. Healthcare is a cost we already pay along with profits for insurance and drug companies so there are plenty of opportunities for cost savings there.