Democratic Socialism

[AM64]

My wife tried her damndest to get me to be a God fearing baptist, even agreed to let her pastor do the ceremony which required us together and individually go to his counseling sessions.

I'm just not much on religion of any brand. I just simply try to be the kind of person that all religions seem to want; I find religions themselves to be to divisive ... which seems completely counter intuitive.

 

[hog88]

I'm just not much on religion of any brand. I just simply try to be the kind of person that all religions seem to want; I find religions themselves to be to divisive ... which seems completely counter intuitive.

Have a fat bank account huh?

 

[0nelilreb]

Allergic to good snapper? Once you get past the smell, you've got it licked.

I would never put down red snapper but our deep sea fishing captain turned us on to triggerfish and they are excellent.

 

[hog88]

I would never put down red snapper but our deep sea fishing captain turned us on to triggerfish and they are excellent.

Always had a weakness for red snapper.

 

[AM64]

Have a fat bank account huh?

I see we have about the same amount of respect for religion. I was thinking more toward what they claim to want morally, but you nailed what they always want.

 

[BowlBrother85]

I'm just not much on religion of any brand. I just simply try to be the kind of person that all religions seem to want; I find religions themselves to be to divisive ... which seems completely counter intuitive.

One of your better posts.... this is a sound philosophy.

 

[1972 Grad]

I see we have about the same amount of respect for religion. I was thinking more toward what they claim to want morally, but you nailed what they always want.

I think the last time I was in church was in a friend's wedding in about 1974. It's been awhile.

Correction: I ate a church prepared meal in the dining hall of a church after my mother-in-law's funeral at the funeral home, 16 months ago. I remember a funeral or two in the past, also.

 

[NCFisher]

This is one of the dumbest posts that I have ever read on this forum. There is so much to unpack here that I'm not going to waste time on a lot of it, but I will address a few things about it...

(1) Social engineering absolutely is a means to redistribute wealth. That is ridiculous to suggest otherwise. The United States is a mixture of socialism and capitalism. We have not been purely capitalist since the 1800's. This is so ignorant, I'm not wasting time on it.

(2) Trump's $12 billion bailout of the farming industry is definitely an example of socialism... and you pretty much defined it as such yourself.

You are so pretentious and verbose. You constantly contradict yourself with your verbiage.

Then yours is the dumbest reply to the dumbest post you've ever seen.

1.) "Social engineering" has nothing to do with the ECONOMIC system that is producing the wealth. Socialism is an ECONOMIC system. Merely "redistributing" the wealth from a market system does not - voila! - make the market system a socialist system. "Pure" or not isn't a delineation between the two ECONOMIC systems; ownership/control of enterprise and property is.

2.) Ah, no, you simply don't comprehend what is plainly written, in addition to your "ignorance" regarding WTF socialism even is. A middle-schooler can understand the distinction, and would see no "contradiction".

Bring some bite with your bark next time, Sparky.

 

[Rickyvol77]

The polls in those states, indicate that they are. Trump's largest core constituency is comprised of white men over 40, who do not have a college degree and live in a household which earns less than $50,000 annually.

The Republican Party is the party of Jethro and Lulu, who attend Trump rallies and rail against the evils of socialism.... but an hour later pay for their groceries with food stamps on the way back to their public housing residence.

Someone doesn’t understand what Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee and Carolinas have in common. I.E. diversity demographics

 

[Rickyvol77]

Medicare administration is 1.4 percent.

The same costs in the private sector range from 11 to 20 percent, depending on type.

PolitiFact - Comparing administrative costs for private insurance and Medicare

It is too easy to hide behind the vague boogeyman of "Sure, but in the future costs will go up" when the reason it is so low is economies of scale, and you will increase that benefit by having a public option, not decrease it.

The cost of delivery of medical care in this country will go up under either, but it is magnitudes worse under the current system because of inefficiency and fragmentation. The private insurers LOVE that because it provides cover for them to exact such a huge price to deliver the same services as Medicare, but for more money.

You don’t understand the hoops and troubles that Medicare puts on hospitals, patient procedures, doctors etc.

 

[NCFisher]

I always considered the real difference/transition between socialism and communism is that point where people think they are in control and when the gloves come off and the party makes it clear the people have no control. Otherwise, like you say socialism just lets the people think they can experiment and walk away, but initial "euphoria" is just a trap ... all wrapped up in a cozy cocoon before they get introduced to the hard cruel fact that communism is always totalitarianism because it simply doesn't work any other way.

I think that's an apt way to phrase it. Both were/are sold as a technocratic, science-based perfecting of man and society.
In practice there's no difference between socialism and communism; both are totalitarian whether nationalist or Marxist, and why the West abandoned it last century.

 

[Rickyvol77]

There is only a tiny, tiny fraction of Catholics that aren't disgusted with pedophilia.

He’s such a bigot

 

[NCFisher]

The government isn't taking control of the means of production, so it's not purely socialism but it was a socialistic policy to subsidize the farming industry, as a way to offset the impact of a trade war.

...but hey, that clown was even arguing against it being a bailout. That guy probably argues with Siri. He is so damn pretentious.

This clown argued the indelible fact that socialism and market systems are economic system, dullard, and that we not only do not have a "balanced mix" of the two incompatible economic systems, but that the "bailout" isn't one because government - not market forces - caused the harm to the farming industry. Being "pure" isn't a delineating line between socialism and market system; ownership/control of the means of production is.

That's Mr. Clown to you, Rube.

 

[NCFisher]

Isn't government control Marxism?

Maybe Fascism???

I get my isms confused.

You got it; one's universalist solidarity in nature, the other nationalist solidarity.

 

[NCFisher]

I disagree. Farm subsidies are de facto socialism. We can argue whether or not they are necessary, but when the government subsidizes private enterprise it is socialism.

I disagree with your disagreement! : )
Social spending is not socialism. The first is garnered from a *market* system via taxation from personal incomes and private enterprise. Socialism replaces a market system as a competing and incompatible economic system. Subsidies mean the market is certainly less free market, but doesn't make it not a market system.

 

[NCFisher]

Someone doesn’t understand what Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Tennessee and Carolinas have in common. I.E. diversity demographics

Which is also why CA has the highest per capita poverty rate.

In addition, Democrats owned those "red" state legislatures from Reconstruction until the 2008-2012 period. They've been "red" less than a decade which, according to "blues" logic, must be enough time to correct the previous 150 years of Democratic malfeasance.

 

[BowlBrother85]

Then yours is the dumbest reply to the dumbest post you've ever seen.

1.) "Social engineering" has nothing to do with the ECONOMIC system that is producing the wealth. Socialism is an ECONOMIC system. Merely "redistributing" the wealth from a market system does not - voila! - make the market system a socialist system. "Pure" or not isn't a delineation between the two ECONOMIC systems; ownership/control of enterprise and property is.

2.) Ah, no, you simply don't comprehend what is plainly written, in addition to your "ignorance" regarding WTF socialism even is. A middle-schooler can understand the distinction, and would see no "contradiction".

Bring some bite with your bark next time, Sparky.

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise... as well as the political theories and movements associated with such systems. A policy doesn't have to require government ownership in order to be of the socialist philosophy. A government subsidized industry is the product of a socialist agenda.

You are a verbose and pretentious wind-bag full of hot air, who professes an erudition that isn't actually possessed.

 

[NCFisher]

Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise... as well as the political theories and movements associated with such systems. A policy doesn't have to require government ownership in order to be of the socialist philosophy. A government subsidized industry is the product of a socialist agenda.

You are a verbose and pretentious wind-bag full of hot air, who professes an erudition that isn't actually possessed.

And you're both a dishonest and ignorant water boy for an economic and government system you don't understand.

You skipped over the main course from you Wikipedia quote - characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise - and attempted to only highlight the dessert menu.
You also omitted from the Wikipedia article: While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element

Merrian Webster:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (as I mentioned earlier)

Wikipedia:
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises,[8][9] including the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative, or citizen ownership of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element

Britannica:
Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. ...This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed.

Oxford:
a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries

 

[BowlBrother85]

And you're both a dishonest and ignorant water boy for an economic and government system you don't understand.

You skipped over the main course from you Wikipedia quote - characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise - and attempted to only highlight the dessert menu.
You also omitted from the Wikipedia article: While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element

Merrian Webster:
1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done (as I mentioned earlier)

Wikipedia:
Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership[1][2][3] of the means of production[4][5][6][7] and workers' self-management of enterprises,[8][9] including the political theories and movements associated with such systems.[10] Social ownership can be public, collective or cooperative, or citizen ownership of equity.[11] While no single definition encapsulates many types of socialism,[12] social ownership is the one common element

Britannica:
Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.
Society as a whole, therefore, should own or at least control property for the benefit of all its members. ...This conviction puts socialism in opposition to capitalism, which is based on private ownership of the means of production and allows individual choices in a free market to determine how goods and services are distributed.

Oxford:
a set of political and economic theories based on the belief that everyone has an equal right to a share of a country’s wealth and that the government should own and control the main industries

I included what you placed in bold ... and didn't need to use wikipedia. Can you read the first sentence of that post you replied to again? And my point still holds, government subsidies are of a socialist philosophy.

Your posts are long-winded, boring and misguided.

 

[Sea Ray]

I disagree. Farm subsidies are de facto socialism. We can argue whether or not they are necessary, but when the government subsidizes private enterprise it is socialism.

I have no idea where you get that from. I don't see anything like that:

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

 

[NCFisher]

I included what you placed in bold ... and didn't need to use wikipedia. Can you read the first sentence of that post you replied to again? And my point still holds, government subsidies are of a socialist philosophy.

Your posts are long-winded, boring and misguided.

Sure: Socialism is a political, social and economic philosophy encompassing a range of economic and social systems characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise... as well as the political theories and movements associated with such systems

See? You favorably skip past the defining element "characterized by social ownership of the means of production and workers' self-management of the enterprise" to magnify the insignificant. The "political, social" aspects are add-ons (dessert), skin hung on the meat and bones (ownership of production) of the socialist beast.

Let's do it slowly; without socialism as an economic system, there is no socialist society. That's what YOUR reference tell us.

Your point holds squat; you might as well say food - though scant - is "of a socialist society". Further, since socialist government owns the production, how can it subsidize itself?

 

[Sea Ray]

Confiscation of wealth is tyranny. True when a King did it to our early settlers. True when the Congress is given constitutional power to levy taxes.

I agree. Congress was given power to levy income taxes. I don't think they have the power to confiscate wealth. If our courts feel otherwise then we're screwed

 

[Sea Ray]

He's not controlling health care, though. All he is doing is eliminating the middle man as an unnecessary expense.

He's essentially nationalizing the health insurance companies if he bans private insurance. Forget your wording of "controlling". That word can mean anything

 

[1972 Grad]

I agree. Congress was given power to levy income taxes. I don't think they have the power to confiscate wealth. If our courts feel otherwise then we're screwed

If you get one more Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer, and you can consider it done. I'm thinking that Biden would nominate Stacey Abrams. I don't know if she is even a lawyer, but that wouldn't matter to the Democrats.

 

[Sea Ray]

If you get one more Kagan, Sotomayor, Ginsberg, and Breyer, and you can consider it done. I'm thinking that Biden would nominate Stacey Abrams. I don't know if she is even a lawyer, but that wouldn't matter to the Democrats.

No question. If you get one more like that the 2nd Amendment is done too. That's why this election is so important