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

[Rigby5]

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,

Wrong.
The government uses our money, but invests it in irreplaceable things the private sector would not be willing or able to do, such as DARPA research, health care research, space research, computer research, nuclear and thermonuclear research,
Without government investment, we would have no transportation, education, or accessible health care. Almost all the universities are land grant, and all the bridges, harbors, rails, highways, etc. are all mostly government subsidized.
We the American people build almost everything, through our taxes.
The private sector builds almost nothing, and charges so much that it is not worth it.

 

[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.

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.

Yeah, it has been really effective in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where our multi-jillion dollar military has been and was held at bay with small arms and booby traps, by rice farmers and goat herders.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.
Even Mexico has public health care.
We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

 

[Oddball]

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

Wrong.
The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.
Even Mexico has public health care.
We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

Wrong...Those "socialist"countries are primarily market economies, that are held moribund by their insanely massive welfare states, and propped up militarily by Murica's continued support for NATO.

U.S. leaves NATO and closes thier bases in Europe, and their entire welfare state collapses.

 

[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.

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.

I won't argue about how and when to use our military since we are in general agreement. My original point was that the our military, and every military, is organized on the communist model because, in some cases, that is the most efficient method. The arms merchants are organized more along the capitalist model so they compete to arm the military. Again because that is the most efficient. Ironically, the Soviets had pretty much the same model with, in their case, state owned institutions competing against each other.

I think my original point was that every country is a mix of capitalist, socialist, and communist models because each has their place.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Yeah, it has been really effective in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where our multi-jillion dollar military has been and was held at bay with small arms and booby traps, by rice farmers and goat herders.

Wrong, our military was held at bay by our politicians who were unwilling to let the military do what it needed to win. Saddam's military was huge but we just walked over it.

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.
Even Mexico has public health care.
We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

Wrong...Those "socialist"countries are primarily market economies, that are held moribund by their insanely massive welfare states, and propped up militarily by Murica's continued support for NATO.

U.S. leaves NATO and closes thier bases in Europe, and their entire welfare state collapses.

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.
The fact countries have primarily market economies has to do with the fact there is so much hostile competition, so that it is necessary. That does not mean it is desirable.

And the heck with NATO.
There is no military threat, likely never was one, and 90% of our military spending is a foolish waste. Most of our military equipment ends up never used and mothballed in the AZ desert.
Europe would do fine if US leaves NATO and removes those foolish bases in Europe.
Russia is not and never was a real threat, but simply a marketing ploy by US munitions companies and corrupt politicians.
Anyone who really thinks Soviet tanks were going to pour through the Fulda Gap, was a idiot.
The USSR hardly even had much of a male population left after WWII.

 

[Oddball]

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

Wrong.
The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.
Even Mexico has public health care.
We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

Wrong...Those "socialist"countries are primarily market economies, that are held moribund by their insanely massive welfare states, and propped up militarily by Murica's continued support for NATO.

U.S. leaves NATO and closes thier bases in Europe, and their entire welfare state collapses.

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.
The fact countries have primarily market economies has to do with the fact there is so much hostile competition, so that it is necessary. That does not mean it is desirable.

And the heck with NATO.
There is no military threat, likely never was one, and 90% of our military spending is a foolish waste. Most of our military equipment ends up never used and mothballed in the AZ desert.
Europe would do fine if US leaves NATO and removes those foolish bases in Europe.
Russia is not and never was a real threat, but simply a marketing ploy by US munitions companies and corrupt politicians.
Anyone who really thinks Soviet tanks were going to pour through the Fulda Gap, was a idiot.
The USSR hardly even had much of a male population left after WWII.

Productivity creates profits...Profits make wages, benefits, R&D and everything else happen.....Up to and including ravenous, parasitic gubmints which loot those profits.

No production, and everything -and I mean everything- collapses.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yeah, it has been really effective in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where our multi-jillion dollar military has been and was held at bay with small arms and booby traps, by rice farmers and goat herders.

Wrong, our military was held at bay by our politicians who were unwilling to let the military do what it needed to win. Saddam's military was huge but we just walked over it.

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.
Their main battle take for example, was the T-55, obsolete nearly half a century when we invaded.
It was a war crime.
Not only was Iraq innocent and had harmed no one, but they did not even have the WMD the Pentagon claimed, and Shock and Awe was aimed at innocent civilians, causing disease, starvation, and other deaths of almost half a million innocent civilian Iraqis.

 

[alang1216]

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.

You're confusing productivity and production. The former is a measure of efficiency and that is always desirable. The later is a matter of numbers and capitalism is way more efficient at producing exactly the number required.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Wrong.

lemme guess! public school! right?

The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.

geez, you can tell by the way their citizens are flooding our borders! right?

Even Mexico has public health care.

of course they do, what would you expect poor countries to have? socialized medicine is the medicinal equivalent of food stamps

We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

and you feel that the less fortunate should be a part of this? is that correct?

 

[Rigby5]

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

Wrong.
The other countries doing better than us do so because they are MORE socialist than we are.
The whole rest of the world is more socialist than we are.
Even Mexico has public health care.
We have far more medical malpractice because we do medical so badly.

Wrong...Those "socialist"countries are primarily market economies, that are held moribund by their insanely massive welfare states, and propped up militarily by Murica's continued support for NATO.

U.S. leaves NATO and closes thier bases in Europe, and their entire welfare state collapses.

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.
The fact countries have primarily market economies has to do with the fact there is so much hostile competition, so that it is necessary. That does not mean it is desirable.

And the heck with NATO.
There is no military threat, likely never was one, and 90% of our military spending is a foolish waste. Most of our military equipment ends up never used and mothballed in the AZ desert.
Europe would do fine if US leaves NATO and removes those foolish bases in Europe.
Russia is not and never was a real threat, but simply a marketing ploy by US munitions companies and corrupt politicians.
Anyone who really thinks Soviet tanks were going to pour through the Fulda Gap, was a idiot.
The USSR hardly even had much of a male population left after WWII.

Productivity creates profits...Profits make wages, benefits, R&D and everything else happen.....Up to and including ravenous, parasitic gubmints which loot those profits.

No production, and everything -and I mean everything- collapses.

Wrong.
The profit motive is the most wasteful and inefficient.
Look at the auto industry.
There used to be dozens of companies like Studebaker, Rambler, American Motors, etc., that all built facilities here and hired millions of US citizens.
The competition not only meant the all but a few were totally destroyed and wasted, but even the winners outsourced over seas, and we lost all those jobs.

List of former automotive manufacturing plants - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.

The U.S. military is the best example of socialism in the U.S. ...full blown socialism.

 

[alang1216]

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.

Yeah, it has been really effective in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where our multi-jillion dollar military has been and was held at bay with small arms and booby traps, by rice farmers and goat herders.

Wrong, our military was held at bay by our politicians who were unwilling to let the military do what it needed to win. Saddam's military was huge but we just walked over it.

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.
Their main battle take for example, was the T-55, obsolete nearly half a century when we invaded.
It was a war crime.
Not only was Iraq innocent and had harmed no one, but they did not even have the WMD the Pentagon claimed, and Shock and Awe was aimed at innocent civilians, causing disease, starvation, and other deaths of almost half a million innocent civilian Iraqis.

I see I have to repeat myself, the military does not control spending, if you think we spend too much talk to Congress, it is they who allocate the funding levels.

I won't argue the Iraqi invasion was justified, it was not. It is the greatest US blunder of my lifetime and why I consider Dubya the worst President of the last 100 years.

You're wrong about the Iraqi tanks, the majority of Iraqi tanks were T-72s.

 

[alang1216]

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.

The U.S. military is the best example of socialism in the U.S. ...full blown socialism.

On the contrary, the U.S. military is the best example of communism in the U.S. ...full blown communism .

 

[Rigby5]

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.

You're confusing productivity and production. The former is a measure of efficiency and that is always desirable. The later is a matter of numbers and capitalism is way more efficient at producing exactly the number required.

No, productivity is not at all the desirable goal.
It if were, then we would be using slave labor, have no minimum wage, allow company towns, allow monopolies, etc.
You do not want the highest production either.
With capitalism you always have to over produce because you hope for the highest market share, and want economy of scale.
But the reality is only one is going to win, and all the rest get scrapped and totally wasted.
It is the most inefficient means possible.
The ONLY advantage of capitalism is innovation and ability to produce the most powerful weapons the quickest.
Capitalism is the most wasteful in terms of resources, lives, quality of life, duplication, bankruptcy, unfair market manipulation, terrible working conditions, etc.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

On the contrary, the U.S. military is the best example of communism in the U.S. ...full blown communism .

first of all communism isn't "contrary" to socialism, it is akin to it, and communism is nothing more than full blown socialism, thanks for the validation.

 

[alang1216]

So what if capitalism is more productive than socialism?
Productivity is only important in times of invasion.
You don't want the highest possible productivity rate because it wastes resources and lowers the quality of life.

You're confusing productivity and production. The former is a measure of efficiency and that is always desirable. The later is a matter of numbers and capitalism is way more efficient at producing exactly the number required.

No, productivity is not at all the desirable goal.
It if were, then we would be using slave labor, have no minimum wage, allow company towns, allow monopolies, etc.
You do not want the highest production either.
With capitalism you always have to over produce because you hope for the highest market share, and want economy of scale.
But the reality is only one is going to win, and all the rest get scrapped and totally wasted.
It is the most inefficient means possible.
The ONLY advantage of capitalism is innovation and ability to produce the most powerful weapons the quickest.
Capitalism is the most wasteful in terms of resources, lives, quality of life, duplication, bankruptcy, unfair market manipulation, terrible working conditions, etc.

Unregulated anything is a danger. The role of government in capitalism is to set the rules, kind of like the role of the owners of the NFL, and to enforce the rules, like the NFL refs. Each team has to play by the same rules but gets to choose its players and plays.

 

[Rigby5]

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.

Yeah, it has been really effective in places like Vietnam and Afghanistan, where our multi-jillion dollar military has been and was held at bay with small arms and booby traps, by rice farmers and goat herders.

Wrong, our military was held at bay by our politicians who were unwilling to let the military do what it needed to win. Saddam's military was huge but we just walked over it.

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.
Their main battle take for example, was the T-55, obsolete nearly half a century when we invaded.
It was a war crime.
Not only was Iraq innocent and had harmed no one, but they did not even have the WMD the Pentagon claimed, and Shock and Awe was aimed at innocent civilians, causing disease, starvation, and other deaths of almost half a million innocent civilian Iraqis.

I see I have to repeat myself, the military does not control spending, if you think we spend too much talk to Congress, it is they who allocate the funding levels.

I won't argue the Iraqi invasion was justified, it was not. It is the greatest US blunder of my lifetime and why I consider Dubya the worst President of the last 100 years.

You're wrong about the Iraqi tanks, the majority of Iraqi tanks were T-72s.

The military not only lobbies, but is part of the whole Military Industrial Complex, with its built in kickbacks, corruption, bribes, cushy retirement jobs, etc.
Congress is just a front to gather political contributions.

If Iraq had T-72 mainly, then they were only 30 years obsolete instead of 50.
Still not at all a threat.

Nor is Iraq an isolated mistake.
Korea was caused by the US installing Sygman Rhee, a past Korean leader charged with crimes who had fled to the US, decades earlier.
Vietnam was caused by the US illegally abrogating the international Paris Peace accord between France and Vietnam.
Iranian hostility came from the illegal US takeover of Iran in 1953, Operation Ajax.

1953 Iranian coup d'état - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We murdered Allende in Chile.
We invaded Grenda and Panama.
We created the Taliban in 1979, and then later turned on them and tried to murder them.
We destroyed the democracy in Egypt.
We stole Palestine and gave it to European Zionists.
Etc.

It is not just one or more "mistakes" but such a consistent series of evil that it has to be deliberate.

 

[Rigby5]

Totally and completely wrong.
The US military is totally out of control, spending 10 times what it should, lying to us, and illegally invading defenseless innocents like Iraq.

The U.S. military is the best example of socialism in the U.S. ...full blown socialism.

On the contrary, the U.S. military is the best example of communism in the U.S. ...full blown communism .

Not at all in my opinion.
Since we have not been attacked since 1812, if the US were socialist or communist when it comes to the military, we would have a military about 10% the size of what we have.
That is because for defense only, you don't need much, and you could rely mostly on a well armed and trained civilian force.
The current US military is entirely offensive, to project force onto distant foreign countries where there are profits to be made, like Iraqi oil.
The US military is as capitalist as you can get, like an organization of pirate mercenaries.
About the only historical countries more with more capitalist militaries were the British Empire and the Roman Empire.