Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[bripat9643]

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

Maybe in Canada, but in the US building inspectors (government) shows up to sign off.

Sure they do.

 

[Contumacious]

It doesn't allow control of individual businesses does it....nor the control over what is made, sold or bought by individuals...until obamacare. Keep trying to lie about the Constitution....it won't work.

But...what if it's competing against businesses?
Isn't that the same thing?
You know, building and operating roads, running a military...all things that could be done privately...you said so yourself.
That's pretty socialist isn't it?

No.

So you would have no problem with the federal government setting up a chain of stores for example...competing against Walmart etc.
Interesting...now you sound socialist.

That is socialism and is not allowed, since the federal government would have to use tax money to do that....not in there....

But...isn't that exactly what the Constitution allows when setting up a military service when - according to you - it could be done better by a private business?
Doesn't that mean that the federal government is doing work that could be done privately?
Same with the Post Office.
See...The Constitution is a Socialist document.

I get your drift.

but the Constitution authorizes the federal government to

"raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"


So it does not prevent them from using mercenaries . Specially since the Framers did not want standing armies. Hence appropriations for no more than two years.


Secondly

Article 1, Section 8 Authorizes congress to

declare War, "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal", and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


so there , if Congress issues Letters of Marque and reprisal and pays mercenaries the entire defense apparatus will consists of private individuals hired for a specific purpose.


Unfortutanely, we have evolved into a welfare/warfare state hence the military is used as an organization to provide welfare type of benefits.


.

 

[Dante]

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

Maybe in Canada, but in the US building inspectors (government) shows up to sign off.

Years ago there was a ring of arsonists in Boston comprised of landlords, insurance agents and fire inspectors.

Poor Brippet is arguing a theory or model against reality. He does throw in anecdotal evidence as if that alone carries the full weight of settling an issue

 

[Dante]

Matthew

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

It proves you have no clue what you are responding to. Matthew is arguing pro socialistic public sector

I understand that, nimrod. His claim that all states have a public sector doesn't prove squat except that states like to expropriate the incomes of their citizens and dole out benefits to favored constituencies.

Governments have been collecting taxes for all of recorded history

What is your point?

Yeah, and dogs have had fleas since the beginning of dogs. Does that mean dogs benefit from being infested by fleas?

There are animals that have parasites that live on them and in them. There are societies like ours that have parasites of greed

Matthew was arguing pro socialistic public sector and you had no clue what you were responding to.

It's a pattern

 

[Dante]

I get your drift.

but the Constitution authorizes the federal government to

"raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;"


So it does not prevent them from using mercenaries . Specially since the Framers did not want standing armies. Hence appropriations for no more than two years.


Secondly

Article 1, Section 8 Authorizes congress to

declare War, "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal", and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;


so there , if Congress issues Letters of Marque and reprisal and pays mercenaries the entire defense apparatus will consists of private individuals hired for a specific purpose.


Unfortutanely, we have evolved into a welfare/warfare state hence the military is used as an organization to provide welfare type of benefits.

IF YOU HAVE TROUBLE READING WHY NOT LEARN HOW

TO ENLARGE FONTS IN YOUR BROWSER INSTEAD OF

IRRITATING THE F()K OUT OF THE REST OF THE

WORLD?



ARE YOU ONE OF THOSE DEAF F()KS WHO REFUSES TO

WEAR HEARING AIDS?


AND WHAT IS UP WITH ALL THE SPACES?

ARE YOU USING A MACHINE FOR THE BLIND? THE DEAF?


WHAT IS UP?

 

[Stephanie]

Sure. Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism. You against those too?

the fire dept. is not a socialist organization.......Socialism controls the means of production.......concentrating economic decisions in the hands of the government......totalitarian socialism gathers up every other aspect of life.

The general welfare is part of the Constitution...except they don"t mean just giving money from one person to another.

I can not believe they are still spewing that nonsense. where I lived in Alaska the fire department was all Volunteer. and fire departments and the police are paid for by the STATES and the people who lives in them.

 

[Dante]

Sure. Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism. You against those too?

the fire dept. is not a socialist organization.......Socialism controls the means of production.......concentrating economic decisions in the hands of the government......totalitarian socialism gathers up every other aspect of life.

The general welfare is part of the Constitution...except they don"t mean just giving money from one person to another.

I can not believe they are still spewing that nonsense. where I lived in Alaska the fire department was all Volunteer. and fire departments and the police are paid for by the STATES and the people who lives in them.

You live in f()king Alaska? No! Say it ain't so?

You are comparing East Bumf()k nowhere to major cities and states?

 

[ScienceRocks]

We pay taxes for the roads, police, fire department, public education, etc. These are all elements of civilization that in many ways go back thousands of years.

Civilization is all about working together! Why not just become hunter gathers once again if we're not going to do so?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Every single nation we copied to develop our constitution had a public sector. Explorers wouldn't have gotten to the new world if it wasn't for government investment(Columbus) and chartered trade centers. Colleges have been chartered(given rights under the government) for over a thousand years.

Rome, Greece, Briton and every nation you can imagine had a mixed economy with the government having the power to stop bs in the private sector.

 

[David_42]

Sanders is a moderate social democrat, many apply the label "democratic socialist" as he is in favor of worker co-ops, universal healthcare, and the like. He in no ways represents that democrats are a socialist party, it's idiocy to say so, and you know it is.

 

[ScienceRocks]

You think Jefferson, Adams or even Madison would of invested in infrastructure, turned a blind eye to the central bank and did things you loserterians say are unconstitutional? Adams signed a law that want after people that spoke badly against him!!! he was a important founder.

Under Washington people like Hamilton developed the central bank. And like I said above, every single one of the nations we copied invested in infrastructure and science.

Makes you foolish assholes look pretty bad.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Lots of volunteer fire departments, and I honor every single person who participates, but public fire departments are much more effective. That's why most small towns scramble at the first opportunity to set one up. How effective do you think a volunteer fire department would have been on 9/11?

There are also private fire departments, and they are about 1/3 the price of government run fire departments. When you pay people to retire at 42 on a 100% pension, it gets real expensive.

Who pays for them?

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

Look around you. People are too stupid to even drive slowly through town without there being laws requiring it.

 

[David_42]

The OP is confused about the difference between Marx, who didn't believe in a system built around private property, and Keynes, who most certainly did. This kind of confusion is common among those with limited post high school education, leaving them victim to things like talk radio and popular media.

Democrats side with Keynes in their belief that markets generally get incentives right, and they do a better job (than government) at calibrating supply and demand. However, they believe that markets are fallible, and subject to corruption and terrible crashes. For this reasons a Keynesian believe in regulations along with government stimulus during downturns (which actually includes tax breaks). Keynesians also favor infrastructure projects so that capital investment has the advantage of modern transportation, energy grids , water works, disaster relief, and technology, e.g., the satellite system or the technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA, for instance.

Most Republican presidents have been Keynesians, though the post Ford Republicans (Reagan/Bush 41/43 ) didn't admit it. Reagan added more government jobs than any president thereafter, mostly in defense; and he also funded massive defense sector technology which has had profound commercial applications. He saved Social Security. Bush 43 used his ownership society to stimulate a housing boom, which had an immense economic multiplier effect. He also made the largest expansion of the entitlement system since LBJ with his Medicare D. These are just a few examples.

You might research how the government defense jobs Reagan added in Southern California stimulated the economies of that region. Each government job represented another consumer on Main Street. Reagan may have been rhetorically against big government, but he was a brilliant military Keynesian.

But here is the point. A socialist does not support markets at all whereas a Keynesian believes that government can partner with markets - and nobody proved this better than Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

You might say that Keynesians are closer to Socialists than Libertarians, but to confuse Marx with Keynes makes you sound like an idiot. There are huge conceptual differences.

(This is why Trump is leading in the polls with Republicans. The Republican Party needed the under-educated low-information voter to create an electoral coalition strong enough to topple FDRs New Deal coalition - and now we are lying in that bed)

Brilliant post, it's funny how all the people claiming democrats are socialists blatantly ignore it.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would just like someone from amongst the anti-socialist RW'ers around here to tell us what exactly is socialist in the US today,

as far as they are concerned.

Your rants against socialism might be less comical if they were accompanied by some identification of what you think is socialist.

 

[David_42]

I would just like someone from amongst the anti-socialist RW'ers around here to tell us what exactly is socialist in the US today,

as far as they are concerned.

Your rants against socialism might be less comical if they were accompanied by some identification of what you think is socialist.

I'd like to know this as well. Roads? LOL.

 

[ScienceRocks]

They think paying taxes for infrastructure, science, or anything is socialist. They don't realize that governments have been doing this for thousands of years...

 

[Little-Acorn]

They think paying taxes for infrastructure, science, or anything is socialist.

That's the usual lie told by socialists trying to conceal what conservatives actually think.

governments have been doing this for thousands of years...

The usual "justification" offered by socialists to avoid discussing whether socialism is good or bad. As though "govt has been doing this a long time" somehow makes it right.

 

[Little-Acorn]

Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?


Heavens, no. Democrats can never admit what they really are, and what they intend to do. They know normal Americans would reject them wholesale if the Americans found out their real agenda. So they will lie, divert, and mislead 24/7 to avoid normal Americans finding out what they're really going to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I would just like someone from amongst the anti-socialist RW'ers around here to tell us what exactly is socialist in the US today,

as far as they are concerned.

Your rants against socialism might be less comical if they were accompanied by some identification of what you think is socialist.

I'd like to know this as well. Roads? LOL.

Public school systems best fit the description of socialism. Government operated, taxpayer funded, most employees are government employees, education for virtually all children regardless of their parents' ability to pay.

Given that, how many politicians on the right do you ever hear saying that they would end public education?

Pretty close to zero. The best example of socialism in the US has almost no outright opposition.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?


Heavens, no. Democrats can never admit what they actually intend to do. They know normal Americans would reject them wholesale if the Americans found out their real agenda... so they will lie, divert, and mislead 24/7 to avoid normal Americans finding out what they really want.

What do they 'intend' to do, specifically?