Socialism Fails Everytime ...

#27
#27
BowlBrother85 said:
What kills me about these people who 'boo' the word "socialism" at Trump rallies, is that many of the older members of the crowd (especially in our poorest states such as West Virginia and Mississippi) could not survive without Social Security benefits. They simply don't understand what it is they are booing.

Trump benefits from an ignorant base. The worst features of capitalism (without controls) are much more likely to destroy the middle class, than the worst features of socialism.
Click to expand...

Nor could they have fed, clothed and educated their children without a "draw".
 
#30
#30
1972 Grad said:
Not everyone can have an important job at the bank.
Click to expand...
BowlBrother85 said:
Not everyone does... even those of us who work at a bank.
Click to expand...
I was an exceptional bank teller for 13 months ‘03-‘04. My drawer was off by one cent for mu duration and i had documentation on that day because it was due to the exchange rate with Canada. My exit interviewer blew it off but I kept a record.
 
#31
#31
BowlBrother85 said:
I sure do hate to break it to you, but the United States economic system has always been a mixed economy that features characteristics of both capitalism and socialism. A mixed economic system protects private property and allows a level of economic freedom in the use of capital, but also allows for the government to intervene in economic activities in order to achieve social aims and for the public good.

The government of the United States has ALWAYS played some role in the economic affairs of the nation. The U.S. government controls or partially controls goods or services, such as education, courts, roads, hospital care and postal delivery. It also provides subsidies to agricultural producers (just as Trump has continued to do during his presidency), oil companies, financial companies and utility firms. Nearly every type of business and every form of economic exchange is affected by government policy in the United States including the Food and Drug Administration, the Federal Trade Commission and the Department of Labor.

The U.S, government also plays a role in the economy via financial policies that can influence inflation and business production. The Federal Reserve is charged with controlling monetary policy (which has to do with the quantity, velocity and availability of the circulating money supply), while Congress and the Executive branch handle fiscal policy (which focuses on raising government revenue or reducing government spending). Now, if you want to argue in favor of lower taxes, that's fine... but that doesn't change the fundamental system we are under - which is a mixed economy that features both capitalism and socialism.

Only a truly ignorant person, who doesn't understand that we are already (and have always been) a mixed economy would be this spooked by the word "socialism".
Click to expand...

I don't think most people would agree with your concept that select government run programs and services are socialist. To do that, you'd also have to agree that the Constitution doesn't make us a Republic rather that it makes us a dictatorship because the Constitution (written by a bunch of old white guys who were against being a colony of a foreign government) decided they knew what was best for us. Never mind the fact that they were appointed as the representatives of the states. You see, the issues they brought up were services and programs generally handled by governments of the time, and they agreed that a outside that scope all the other issues would be left up to the states. There's been a steady encroachment of federalism - generally fostered by the liberal element, so it's a little absurd hearing a liberal claiming (and complaining) we are "socialist" when your own types are the ones who perverted a reasonable system.

Your views are highly perverted by technology that exists today but wasn't even a hope in the days during which our government was formed. The postal system is an example; there are alternatives today ... Fedex, UPS, email, etc; but in those days the only reasonable way to move a letter from one location to another was by the government sponsored post. Some things are better controlled by the government - could you imagine interstate commerce on a patchwork of roads with no oversight regarding standards? Remember until recent government meddling, the medical community was far more autonomous; your hero Zero was the clown who demanded insurance for all and electronic documentation.

I don't think you'll find definitions for regulation that equate regulation to socialism. Take another example, would you consider regulations regarding waste management, pollution, and clean drinking water as socialism or reasonable oversight of health and safety by elected governments? Most of us would go with the oversight argument. You and I might be responsible about where the effluent from our own house goes, but you and I individually have no real control over what our neighbors do.
 
#33
#33
1972 Grad said:
….and that condescending attitude from your side will help motivate us deplorables to come out in record numbers once more. Thanks.
Click to expand...
But you know it's true. Half the farmers at a Trump rally are on some type of subsidy but scream about the evils of socialism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard
#35
#35
AM64 said:
I don't think most people would agree with your concept that select government run programs and services are socialist. To do that, you'd also have to agree that the Constitution doesn't make us a Republic rather that it makes us a dictatorship because the Constitution (written by a bunch of old white guys who were against being a colony of a foreign government) decided they knew what was best for us. Never mind the fact that they were appointed as the representatives of the states. You see, the issues they brought up were services and programs generally handled by governments of the time, and they agreed that a outside that scope all the other issues would be left up to the states. There's been a steady encroachment of federalism - generally fostered by the liberal element, so it's a little absurd hearing a liberal claiming (and complaining) we are "socialist" when your own types are the ones who perverted a reasonable system.

Your views are highly perverted by technology that exists today but wasn't even a hope in the days during which our government was formed. The postal system is an example; there are alternatives today ... Fedex, UPS, email, etc; but in those days the only reasonable way to move a letter from one location to another was by the government sponsored post. Some things are better controlled by the government - could you imagine interstate commerce on a patchwork of roads with no oversight regarding standards? Remember until recent government meddling, the medical community was far more autonomous; your hero Zero was the clown who demanded insurance for all and electronic documentation.

I don't think you'll find definitions for regulation that equate regulation to socialism. Take another example, would you consider regulations regarding waste management, pollution, and clean drinking water as socialism or reasonable oversight of health and safety by elected governments? Most of us would go with the oversight argument. You and I might be responsible about where the effluent from our own house goes, but you and I individually have no real control over what our neighbors do.
Click to expand...
What a bunch of nonsense.... seriously!
 
#36
#36
1972 Grad said:
Not everyone can have an important job at the bank.
Click to expand...
Give it a break '72. How many people on here have incessantly commented on the previewed ignorance of AOC and the people who support her?
I can tell you, many more and with much greater frequency than the reverse.
The overly sensitive inferiority complex of the right is telling.
 
  • Like
Reactions: PointGuard
#37
#37
AM64 said:
I don't think most people would agree with your concept that select government run programs and services are socialist. To do that, you'd also have to agree that the Constitution doesn't make us a Republic rather that it makes us a dictatorship because the Constitution (written by a bunch of old white guys who were against being a colony of a foreign government) decided they knew what was best for us. Never mind the fact that they were appointed as the representatives of the states. You see, the issues they brought up were services and programs generally handled by governments of the time, and they agreed that a outside that scope all the other issues would be left up to the states. There's been a steady encroachment of federalism - generally fostered by the liberal element, so it's a little absurd hearing a liberal claiming (and complaining) we are "socialist" when your own types are the ones who perverted a reasonable system.

Your views are highly perverted by technology that exists today but wasn't even a hope in the days during which our government was formed. The postal system is an example; there are alternatives today ... Fedex, UPS, email, etc; but in those days the only reasonable way to move a letter from one location to another was by the government sponsored post. Some things are better controlled by the government - could you imagine interstate commerce on a patchwork of roads with no oversight regarding standards? Remember until recent government meddling, the medical community was far more autonomous; your hero Zero was the clown who demanded insurance for all and electronic documentation.

I don't think you'll find definitions for regulation that equate regulation to socialism. Take another example, would you consider regulations regarding waste management, pollution, and clean drinking water as socialism or reasonable oversight of health and safety by elected governments? Most of us would go with the oversight argument. You and I might be responsible about where the effluent from our own house goes, but you and I individually have no real control over what our neighbors do.
Click to expand...
Nowhere did I discuss regulation.
 
#39
#39
0nelilreb said:
I find it amusing to listen to you all tell us not to be spooked over this “ right wing scare tactic “ while we all watch Venezuela burn down to the ground .
Click to expand...
That is just because the smart liberals here weren't in charge. It would have worked the way they want to do it. They are really smart about socialism and stuff.
 
  • Like
Reactions: -GiveHim6-, tennvols77, AM64 and 4 others
#45
#45
Bush was a neocon, in other words a socialist war hawk.He was not a conservative in the purest sense. He was a socialist republican and a terrible president.
 
#47
#47
BowlBrother85 said:
Trump is starting to use the word "socialism" as a trigger word to his base. I think most of the people who become upset or angry when they hear "socialism" either don't understand what it is or don't realize that we have always used significant features of it. And the most socialistic move any President has ever undertaken was the bailout during the 2008 financial crisis... and who was responsible for that ? George W. Bush - a Republican.
Click to expand...
That's right it was Dubya. I thought it was stupid then just like i think it's stupid now. Bailing out
" financial" services. Dubya is my favorite village idiot.
I didn't care for socialism since i found out what it was in high school 35 years ago. Had plenty of time to think on it. Still don't care for it.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Rasputin_Vol
#49
#49
ClearwaterVol said:
Socialism, the dog whistle of the Republicans. Providing healthcare for all does equal a socialist country.
Click to expand...
I think the taste of ACA showed me all i needed to see of government involved healthcare. Medicare and the VA system is wrought with fraud, abuse and mismanagement, just as another example of something the government does epically bad. ( doesn't matter who's in charge) I don't know what ppl expected to happen when Obama said " ya we want to cover everybody and make the gov responsible" My first thought was that's gonna be a fail.
The further you expand government involvement into private life, the closer you move into a socialistic struggle.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64, CagleMtnVol, CABVOL and 2 others
#50
#50
ClearwaterVol said:
Socialism, the dog whistle of the Republicans. Providing healthcare for all does equal a socialist country.
Click to expand...
Universal “healthcare”, the retardation of the left.

What does “healthcare” entail? How much will it cost everyone? Destroying a country for a service is idiotic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: AM64
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top