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

[danielpalos]

Guess it's that ronald reagan crap again. Get the government out of the way so the free market can work it's miracles.

So what works better in your opinion than free market capitalism?


Thank you.

I'll add a word or 2 please.....Why does everyone who lives in THE WORLD, other than here, want their A parked here???????????????.........HA!!!

FDR's brand of socialism that upgraded our economy from the third world to the first world via second world command economics.

 

[Persistence Of Memory]

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?

Socialism has to have 3 main things to happen to be socialistic.

1- All farm land will be collectivized. Owned by everyone.
2- No private property. Owned by everyone.
3- No private enterprise. Everyone owns it.

Communism is all 3 above, and you'll be shot if you don't like it.

If it does not have these main points, it ain't soshulizm. If you don't have terrorism, starvation, and misery, It ain't communism.

Where did you get your understanding of socialism from?

My cousins wifes great-uncle was awakened in the middle of the night in the Castro regime around 1962, and was never heard from or seen again.

Bet ya never heard that definition have ya.

Our Civil War should have never happened. Blacks were citizens after 1808. It was merely a lack of sufficient morals to faithfully execute our own laws.

I've always said, we shoulda been pikin our own GD cotton and no one else. It would have been worth it even if cotton prices were higher.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Both the Green New Deal and Medicare are putting dollars into circulation by providing private sector employment; Medicare only covers a part of health care for Seniors, which is why you see on TV ads for both health Insurance companies and Big Pharma. The Green New Deal too has created private sector 21st century jobs, and reduces polluting our air, water and soil.

The OP is an example of concrete thinking, if any thinking is part of the author of this thread.

 

[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.

Both the Green New Deal and Medicare are putting dollars into circulation by providing private sector employment; Medicare only covers a part of health care for Seniors, which is why you see on TV ads for both health Insurance companies and Big Pharma. The Green New Deal too has created private sector 21st century jobs, and reduces polluting our air, water and soil.

The OP is an example of concrete thinking, if any thinking is part of the author of this thread.

The government is only ever a drain on the economy. Period. The government creates nothing because if takes our money and redistributes it (poorly) after taking a big cut off the top. The government did not build it. We the American People built it and always have,

 

[CowboyTed]

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.

Would suggest you familiar yourself with the actual meaning of Socialism and Communism first...

There are plenty of Social Programs that work globally... Look at Health, the best universal health systems in the world are social programs, so are the best education systems, Military, Transport, Police, Fire Dept.....

Worldwide these are successful. The question should be why does America continue to defund successful Government run programs? Is it because it hell bent on bending to lobbyists who favour rich and corporates over the ordinary people.

If you want an example look at Germany, for the last 7 years they have run a surplus, have unemployment half of US, universal Healthcare, free third level education to there best universities, excellent safety net... So comparing the more democratic socialist Germany to US they are ahead of US... Look how they handled COVID, despite getting hit badly there deaths per case are the lowest in the world...

So Germany is my answer...

 

[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.

Would suggest you familiar yourself with the actual meaning of Socialism and Communism first...

There are plenty of Social Programs that work globally... Look at Health, the best universal health systems in the world are social programs, so are the best education systems, Military, Transport, Police, Fire Dept.....

Worldwide these are successful. The question should be why does America continue to defund successful Government run programs? Is it because it hell bent on bending to lobbyists who favour rich and corporates over the ordinary people.

If you want an example look at Germany, for the last 7 years they have run a surplus, have unemployment half of US, universal Healthcare, free third level education to there best universities, excellent safety net... So comparing the more democratic socialist Germany to US they are ahead of US... Look how they handled COVID, despite getting hit badly there deaths per case are the lowest in the world...

So Germany is my answer...

And they have had huge civil unrest due to a massive influx of Muslim immigrates most Germans did not want and a much slower growing economy than us.

 

[Rye Catcher]

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.

Both the Green New Deal and Medicare are putting dollars into circulation by providing private sector employment; Medicare only covers a part of health care for Seniors, which is why you see on TV ads for both health Insurance companies and Big Pharma. The Green New Deal too has created private sector 21st century jobs, and reduces polluting our air, water and soil.

The OP is an example of concrete thinking, if any thinking is part of the author of this thread.

The government is only ever a drain on the economy. Period. The government creates nothing because if takes our money and redistributes it (poorly) after taking a big cut off the top. The government did not build it. We the American People built it and always have,

We the People are the consumers, and the Republican Congress believes in VooDoo economics; it's been tried three time and each time it created wider and wider gaps between the wealthy and the middle class, working poor and those stuck in poverty.

The current economic problems are rooted in the collapse of small businesses having laid off millions of paycheck to paycheck employees. Common sense [CS] suggests these millions of now out of work people cannot pay rent, or a mortgage if they are home owners.

CS tells us that another real estate crash will exacerbate unemployment and may possibly circle the drain, putting our nation into a decades long depression.

Consider James Davis theory of Revolution:

J-curve hypothesis | sociology and political science

 

[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.

Both the Green New Deal and Medicare are putting dollars into circulation by providing private sector employment; Medicare only covers a part of health care for Seniors, which is why you see on TV ads for both health Insurance companies and Big Pharma. The Green New Deal too has created private sector 21st century jobs, and reduces polluting our air, water and soil.

The OP is an example of concrete thinking, if any thinking is part of the author of this thread.

The government is only ever a drain on the economy. Period. The government creates nothing because if takes our money and redistributes it (poorly) after taking a big cut off the top. The government did not build it. We the American People built it and always have,

"The government" is not a money making proposition. Government programs are not meant to be profitable.

This isn't rocket science, kid. It's been explained to you several times in this thread already.

 

[forkup]

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.

Would suggest you familiar yourself with the actual meaning of Socialism and Communism first...

There are plenty of Social Programs that work globally... Look at Health, the best universal health systems in the world are social programs, so are the best education systems, Military, Transport, Police, Fire Dept.....

Worldwide these are successful. The question should be why does America continue to defund successful Government run programs? Is it because it hell bent on bending to lobbyists who favour rich and corporates over the ordinary people.

If you want an example look at Germany, for the last 7 years they have run a surplus, have unemployment half of US, universal Healthcare, free third level education to there best universities, excellent safety net... So comparing the more democratic socialist Germany to US they are ahead of US... Look how they handled COVID, despite getting hit badly there deaths per case are the lowest in the world...

So Germany is my answer...

And they have had huge civil unrest due to a massive influx of Muslim immigrates most Germans did not want and a much slower growing economy than us.

You honestly want to have civil unrest as an indication of a failed state? Think long and hard on that one please.

As to growing economy's. Guess what, growing an economy by borrowing money from future generations is not hard. It's also not something to brag about.

 

[forkup]

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.

Both the Green New Deal and Medicare are putting dollars into circulation by providing private sector employment; Medicare only covers a part of health care for Seniors, which is why you see on TV ads for both health Insurance companies and Big Pharma. The Green New Deal too has created private sector 21st century jobs, and reduces polluting our air, water and soil.

The OP is an example of concrete thinking, if any thinking is part of the author of this thread.

The government is only ever a drain on the economy. Period. The government creates nothing because if takes our money and redistributes it (poorly) after taking a big cut off the top. The government did not build it. We the American People built it and always have,

"The government" is not a money making proposition. Government programs are not meant to be profitable.

This isn't rocket science, kid. It's been explained to you several times in this thread already.

Actually I would go further than that and contend that all those countries that have socialized healthcare do so at considerable less expense to the consumer than the for-profit model that the US prefers.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

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

This is exactly the opposite of socialism, it is in fact capitalism, I suspect the writer knows that most would be socialists could be fooled by it due largely to a social education from the public school system as opposed to an academic education provided by the private sector [a quick look at who gave your post a thumbs up will bear me out on this]….
The very first thing that would tip off an academic educated person is the fact that it takes government involvement to be socialist, the very fact that it is the private sector is the reason it works, the reasons why are numerous, but it works because the process is the same as our healthcare system, it is limited to those with a personal financial stake in it and not the entire country, it is paid for on a "pay as you play" basis by those involved and not paid for everyday of your life even if you never use it...
and while the money from TV revenue is shared equally by the teams it is not shared with anyone else, and that's why it works so well...
What this article really shows is the real difference between socialism and capitalism and which works better when the same rules are applied but the money is distributed vs.redistributed...the private sector not only supports itself, but does it so well that it just doesn't seem fair that they do not support the failed policies of others...
the article was merely an example of what used to be called yellow journalism that is now an art form at places like Columbia University.

 

[Oddball]

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 military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

 

[alang1216]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

 

[Oddball]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

That wasn't the point, and you know it...You cited it as a "success" of communism, when it's a model of nearly all the very worst aspects of the ideology.....And you invoked a logical fallacy with your diversionary response to boot.

 

[alang1216]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

That wasn't the point, and you know it...You cited it as a "success" of communism, when it's a model of nearly all the very worst aspects of the ideology.....And you invoked a logical fallacy with your diversionary response to boot.

View attachment 389921

My point was and is that the Communist model is the best one for supporting a military. You can't accept that because your ideological blinders won't let you see anything positive in the model. Reality be damned.

Ours is a volunteer military so it appears many Americans don't have a problem with the organization or their 'ideology'.

 

[Oddball]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

That wasn't the point, and you know it...You cited it as a "success" of communism, when it's a model of nearly all the very worst aspects of the ideology.....And you invoked a logical fallacy with your diversionary response to boot.

View attachment 389921

My point was and is that the Communist model is the best one for supporting a military. You can't accept that because your ideological blinders won't let you see anything positive in the model. Reality be damned.

Ours is a volunteer military so it appears many Americans don't have a problem with the organization or their 'ideology'.

You point was trying to frame it as a "successful" model, when it clearly isn't....My "ideological blinders" have nothing to do with the very clear and unarguable examples of what a monumental mess the military is....Examples you quickly deflected from because they're true and valid.

And your opinion as to what Muricans are willing to suffer isn't relevant to anything, as they have absolutely no choice in the matter....That people are foolhardy enough to sign their lives away to commanders and bureaucrats who couldn't give two shits about them is their problem.

 

[alang1216]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

That wasn't the point, and you know it...You cited it as a "success" of communism, when it's a model of nearly all the very worst aspects of the ideology.....And you invoked a logical fallacy with your diversionary response to boot.

View attachment 389921

My point was and is that the Communist model is the best one for supporting a military. You can't accept that because your ideological blinders won't let you see anything positive in the model. Reality be damned.

Ours is a volunteer military so it appears many Americans don't have a problem with the organization or their 'ideology'.

You point was trying to frame it as a "successful" model, when it clearly isn't....My "ideological blinders" have nothing to do with the very clear and unarguable examples of what a monumental mess the military is....Examples you quickly deflected from because they're true and valid.

And your opinion as to what Muricans are willing to suffer isn't relevant to anything, as they have absolutely no choice in the matter....That people are foolhardy enough to sign their lives away to commanders and bureaucrats who couldn't give two shits about them is their problem.

Our military is the most powerful and effective on the planet and that has a lot to do with it's structure. If our political leaders have made poor use of it, that is not on them but on our democracy.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Trump gave the farmers $24Billion in aid (on top of their yearly subsidies). Was that bit of vivid socialism a failure

Really? our education system has failed this country miserably...the yearly subsidies are the socialism not the aid package, and the aid package is necessary because the socialist policy of yearly subsidies is failing us/the farmers, so yes it was a failure, but the social education provided by the socialists made it less vivid to you but achieved its goal of making you dependent upon them [requiring your vote if you want to stay viable]...aid packages are how capitalists do business [give money only when needed] and yearly subsidies are how socialists do business [give money on a regular schedule, needed or not, so that the socialists are needed] it makes the recipients dependent...
you have little or no understanding of the two principles

 

[Rigby5]

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?

Incredibly foolish.
All socialized companies are SUPPOSED to operate at a loss.
That is their entire intent.
Of course they could all easily operate at a profit, but that would mean they would have to charge more, almost as much as the private providers like FedEx or UPS, and then they would be useless and redundant.
But all those listed are essential social services that we need and want subsidized to improve the quality of life for EVERYONE

And your conclusions make no sense.
For example, you claim the US educational system is the worst in the world because it is socialist, but the reality is EVERY education system in the world is socialist, so it is not socialism that makes our schools bad. It is our capitalism and lack of funding.

As for Social Security, there is only a 20 year shortfall due to the Boomer Bubble, and that can easily be eliminated by a 15% reduction in payouts.

FedEx and UPS make billions by charging over twice as much as the post office, and not delivering everywhere, like the post office does.
Do you think that is fair or a good idea?

 

[Rigby5]

The military is a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered. Communism that works.

If you call a leviathan that consumes 13 of the total budget, rampant crony corporatism, ubiquitous waste, stifling levels of bureaucracy, global hegemony, and the outright murder of hundreds of thousands (millions?) of innocent civilians as "collateral damage" as success, I don't even want to know what failure looks like.

If you want a military, you want a centrally-planned, command-driven system with little freedom of choice offered, because it works. We have the finest military on the planet but even Lichtenstein uses the same model for its military.

That wasn't the point, and you know it...You cited it as a "success" of communism, when it's a model of nearly all the very worst aspects of the ideology.....And you invoked a logical fallacy with your diversionary response to boot.

View attachment 389921

My point was and is that the Communist model is the best one for supporting a military. You can't accept that because your ideological blinders won't let you see anything positive in the model. Reality be damned.

Ours is a volunteer military so it appears many Americans don't have a problem with the organization or their 'ideology'.

You point was trying to frame it as a "successful" model, when it clearly isn't....My "ideological blinders" have nothing to do with the very clear and unarguable examples of what a monumental mess the military is....Examples you quickly deflected from because they're true and valid.

And your opinion as to what Muricans are willing to suffer isn't relevant to anything, as they have absolutely no choice in the matter....That people are foolhardy enough to sign their lives away to commanders and bureaucrats who couldn't give two shits about them is their problem.

Our military is the most powerful and effective on the planet and that has a lot to do with it's structure. If our political leaders have made poor use of it, that is not on them but on our democracy.

Our military is about 10 times more expensive than any other military in the world, per person, and it a total and complete waste.
We have not been attacked since 1812. Pearl Harbor does not count because we have no business in Hawaii, and we crippled Japan first with illegal economic sanctions. For example, it was illegal for use to prevent Japan being able to buy oil, rubber, steel, and food from Indonesia.
Our military lies to us and claims deliberate lies like Iraq having WMD.
Our military illegally attacked in Libya, Syria, Yemen, Iran, Grenada, Panama, etc.
The whole Pentagon should be charged with war crimes.
For example, Shock and Awe was totally illegal and deliberately caused the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians.