Calling It a New Name Won't Make Socialism Work

[Rustic]

That’s just printed paper, someone has to pay for that welfare check… You do realize that we are past the point of no return when it comes to socialist entitlement programs?

Again you dodge the question. How doesn’t it end up in the pockets of politicians?

Tax money never ends up anywhere good...

Then explain where it ends up and how it gets there. You’ve failed like 5 times to explain yourself so far

Obviously it never leaves Washington

That obvious huh? Go ahead and explain that then? What are all the welfare recipients getting?

Printed paper, Fucking worthless

 

[Slade3200]

Again you dodge the question. How doesn’t it end up in the pockets of politicians?

Tax money never ends up anywhere good...

Then explain where it ends up and how it gets there. You’ve failed like 5 times to explain yourself so far

Obviously it never leaves Washington

That obvious huh? Go ahead and explain that then? What are all the welfare recipients getting?

Printed paper, Fucking worthless

Are you drunk? If it’s worthless then why are you bitching about how it’s spent?! Damn man the deeper I dig the dumber you get

 

[Rustic]

Tax money never ends up anywhere good...

Then explain where it ends up and how it gets there. You’ve failed like 5 times to explain yourself so far

Obviously it never leaves Washington

That obvious huh? Go ahead and explain that then? What are all the welfare recipients getting?

Printed paper, Fucking worthless

Are you drunk? If it’s worthless then why are you bitching about how it’s spent?! Damn man the deeper I dig the dumber you get

I Already said we are past the point of no return... The well is dry thanks to socialist entitlement programs

 

[Slade3200]

Then explain where it ends up and how it gets there. You’ve failed like 5 times to explain yourself so far

Obviously it never leaves Washington

That obvious huh? Go ahead and explain that then? What are all the welfare recipients getting?

Printed paper, Fucking worthless

Are you drunk? If it’s worthless then why are you bitching about how it’s spent?! Damn man the deeper I dig the dumber you get

I Already said we are past the point of no return... The well is dry thanks to socialist entitlement programs

And the broken record skips back to the beginning. Thanks for contributing absolutely nothing to the conversation.

 

[bripat9643]

So we're still pretending the Democrats are pushing 100%, full-blown socialism, in which private property is eliminated and government owns all means of production and distribution.

Okay, sure, why not.
.

True. But...

Are they proposing more regulation of various industries and markets rather than less? Yes.
Are they proposing higher corporate taxes? Yes.

Regulations influence or dictate how businesses run and taxes obviously take operating expenses away from them. They are very transparent about wanting more influence on how commerce is done in the U.S., not less. Pair that with their transparent desire for giant government funded programs at extremely high costs and it's very hard to take them at their word.

Why not be honest and call it what it is, or don't call it what it's not? Higher taxes and social programs is not socialism.

"Socialism" is just a concept of socializing resources. It can be applied to anything where there's more than one person involved. If you go out to lunch with 9 colleagues and just say "split the check evenly 10 ways" regardless of what was ordered by each person, then that's socialism of the cost of the lunch. To that end, i would agree that people on the right use the term like a boogeyman when it's convenient for them to. They're referring to economic socialism but calling it just "socialism."

At that point, i'd just refer you to the above. I don't trust people who call themselves "democratic socialists" when they say they don't want to socialize America's economy. They rarely have seen regulations they don't like and tend to think that every problem can be solved by taxing people more and creating a government program for it. As said above, that's further government control of the economy. The more powerful and intrusive government gets, the more powerful and intrusive the government will want to get.

Your example isn't socialism. Splitting the check is voluntary. Socialism isn't.

 

[forkup]

Do you understand the difference between democratic socialism and socialism or do you think they are the same thing?

They are the same thing.

And your ignorance is revealed! Thank you for making my point for me. Do some homework and come back when you are ready to play

If they aren't the same thing then democratic socialism is literally an oxymoron.

You realize this, right?

how exactly do you figure it is an oxymoron?

Because if socialism can’t be democratic then democratic socialism is impossible.

Only, Social Democracy is the preferred method of governing in most Western Nations. So who says Socialism can't be Democratic?

 

[forkup]

Yes, I understand freedom is akin to Liberal values.

Only if we're talking about real liberalism.

The root of Liberal is from freedom.

Then there's the fact that freedom would be Liberalism literally, selling drugs to 5 year olds, while those 5 year olds look at Porn, and those 5 year olds listen to Gangster rap music.

Liberty should never be written or spoken absent the word responsibility simply because of its primary foundation for moral code. Liberty-Responsibility. Liberty and responsibility cannot be accepted or rejected piece meal. They have to be accepted or rejected as an Indivisible whole, else there will be none at all.

That's a deep discussion. Too deep for this thread, for sure. Perhaps too deep for this forum.

I left libertarianism because the libertines became the primary spokespersons for it. Libertine, however, is not libertarian.

Liberty and responsibility are selectively employed all the time. People pay taxes to get pensions because the state has found people don't tend to save enough on their own. People pay taxes for all kinds of infrastructure works because they know, people, when left to their own devices won't fix it themselves. Defense, Medicare, gun control, hell even seat belts are mandatory because they save lives and people won't wear them consistently if laws don't force them. In fact both taxes and laws are examples of a state conceding that people don't always take personal responsibility , and as such constrict personal liberty in a selective manner.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The freedom to have Porn, an Abortion, listen to Gangster Rap music, to wear Che-Guevara T-Shirts.

The freedom to be Muslim Gay, Black, Jewish, an Illegal immigrant, etc. etc.

Yes, I understand freedom is akin to Liberal values.

Freedom is freedom. The government is responsible for public safety and opportunity. Morality is up to each family to teach as they see fit... not for the government to regulate

Why do you think morality has gone down so far in the West?

Morality does have a big impact on society, so why shouldn't it be regulated?

It can be regulated and it currently is, there are all kinds of regulations around the movies, music, and goods that we produce, market and sell. I’m not calling for zero regulation.

Morality has gone down because our society has become oversaturated on many levels and maintaining focus and discipline on core values has slipped away to acting in impulse. But that is a much larger discussion...

Not enough for sure. Porn, and Rap Music should be basically censored out completely.

There's way too much trash out there in general.

A bunch of Capitalist smut peddlers trying to profit off of anti-Human values.

I could say the same thing about some of your posts... do you wanna be censored?

Sorry that’s not it’s the country we live in

The Liberal Capitalist companies have already been censoring out opinions that rival my own.

Why is that?
And why do Republicans tolerate it?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Ownership of all business and industry is communism, PURE SOCIALISM. SOCIALISM EVERYWHERE IN THE WORLD but the GOP bubble of b*******, is every where democratic, Fair capitalism with a good safety net. Calling communism and socialism the same thing is brainwashed GOP drivel, which we now have a tidal wave of. Pure garbage, fear mongered tripe propaganda, super duper ignoramus.

Actually socialism is much worse than communism… Socialism is the incubator for dictatorships

How is Socialism worse than Communism?

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

So we're still pretending the Democrats are pushing 100%, full-blown socialism, in which private property is eliminated and government owns all means of production and distribution.

Okay, sure, why not.
.

Have any evidence they're not?

Sure. The ACA.
.

That’s funny. The author already admitted it was a stepping stone to socialist national healthcare.

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Have any evidence they're not?

Sure. The ACA.
.

That’s funny. The author already admitted it was a stepping stone to socialist national healthcare.

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

Stick to topics you're not ignorant about.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Sure. The ACA.
.

That’s funny. The author already admitted it was a stepping stone to socialist national healthcare.

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

Stick to topics you're not ignorant about.

Ignorant?
As in having your country pay more for healthcare by being Capitalist on healthcare?

 

[Rustic]

That’s funny. The author already admitted it was a stepping stone to socialist national healthcare.

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

Stick to topics you're not ignorant about.

Ignorant?
As in having your country pay more for healthcare by being Capitalist on healthcare?

The problem with socialized medicine someone else is paying for your shit

 

[Rustic]

Much like global warming, socialism holds no water with people in general

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

But it’s never been implemented properly before – this time around. I’m sure top people like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez will succeed where Lenin, Stalin, Khrushchev, Mao, Castro, Chavez, Maduro, etc. have failed.


SORRY, DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISTS — YOU’RE STILL PUSHING POISON.

I happen to know a little something about the transfer of private industry to government control. My grandmother’s father had his bakery seized in the Soviet city of Gomel. He was sent to a gulag, where he then died.

Oh, that’s crazy, Democratic Socialists would respond. No one is planning to seize bakeries. And no one will be sent to prison for owning a business.

No? What if those who own companies in industries that “necessitate some form of state ownership” don’t want to give them up willingly? What happens when the state runs out of money from the industries seized and needs more?

It’s baffling how we can still be considering centralized control of industries when that has never worked anywhere. And how socialism lovers so easily dismiss the underlying foundation in countries that have veered toward some form of that system: capitalism. Countries such as Norway, for example, are helped by a large abundance of natural resources and an essentially capitalist system supporting the welfare state.

On the other hand, nations where socialism continues to wreak havoc and spur poverty, disease and crime, like Venezuela, don’t have much support from capitalism. Fact is, “socialism” only works when it’s paid for by capitalism.

* * * * * * * *

In the fall of 1959, Nikita Khrushchev gave a series of speeches here. In one, he said, “We are catching up with you in economic progress, and the time is not far distant when we will move into the lead.” In Russia, that prompted folks to joke: “When we finally catch up to America, can I get off?”

Let me explain how this shit works.

I worked in Norway on an engineering project for a while. All the people are up to their ass in debt. Their form of Socialism is structured around debt incentives and the governments cut of oil exports. If you have a job the only break you get on taxes is interest on loans. So you borrow up to the max all the time. When I told the engineers I was working with my house was paid for, my car was paid for, and I used my savings to invest they just couldn't understand. I explained you can either collect interest or pay it and it was pretty simple which option I wanted.

They are so taxed if they have money they have to go buy shit they don't need on credit and pay interest or pay it in taxes. This circle jerk never ends and the money from oil is the only way it all gets funded. Otherwise it wouldn't be possible because no lending institution would borrow you money with your individual debt load.

As you can see in the attached OECD data the more Socialist the country the more household debt you have. So you end up being a slave to the state and the bank. Critically limiting your options in life.

And the reality is, Socialists want to control you. Plain and simple. The real problem is not when you run out of other people's money to spend, it's when you run out of money you can borrow.

Socialist are truly stupid.

Household accounts - Household debt - OECD Data

Oh, and a beer was $8.00 back in the 90's because the state will only allow two breweries. I give them one thing, there's no drunks laying around. When you run out of beer money you freeze to death.

 

[Weatherman2020]

That’s funny. The author already admitted it was a stepping stone to socialist national healthcare.

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

Stick to topics you're not ignorant about.

Ignorant?
As in having your country pay more for healthcare by being Capitalist on healthcare?

Another moron spouting free shit for all.

Money just appears out of nowhere.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Liberty and responsibility are selectively employed all the time. People pay taxes to get pensions because the state has found people don't tend to save enough on their own. People pay taxes for all kinds of infrastructure works because they know, people, when left to their own devices won't fix it themselves. Defense, Medicare, gun control, hell even seat belts are mandatory because they save lives and people won't wear them consistently if laws don't force them. In fact both taxes and laws are examples of a state conceding that people don't always take personal responsibility , and as such constrict personal liberty in a selective manner.

Agreed that government is force. That is all that government is. History is ripe with example of what happens when instituting a society where government protects people from themselves. It's big trouble.

Once government uses force to mold behavior and to mold the economy, they've overstepped their bounds and they've violated our entire Revolution and our Constitution.

I, for one, do not consent. I like what the Framers intended before Lincoln came along. The Union used to voluntary.

As far as infrastructure, I'm a fan of private infrastructure. The government owns nothing. The government doesn't have anything because they do not produce anything. All government does is steal from producers and redistribute it arbitrarily. In that regard, governent is the most biased entity in the political lexicon.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

Much like global warming, socialism holds no water with people in general

Republicans claim to be so good with money, facts, and figures.

Yet, the bottom-line is that we do pay significantly more for healthcare in the U.S.A, do not even live longer.

That's not being good with money, facts, and figures.

 

[SobieskiSavedEurope]

The horror of Americans paying less for healthcare.

In my younger days health insurance was free and covered 100% of the costs. And the doctor may go to your home.

So what changed in just my lifetime?

Was ther more socialism then? Nope.

Bigger government and lawyers is the answer.

In your day health insurance was free, and covered 100% of the costs?

So, you grew up on Medicaid?

Stick to topics you're not ignorant about.

Ignorant?
As in having your country pay more for healthcare by being Capitalist on healthcare?

Another moron spouting free shit for all.

Money just appears out of nowhere.

Individualists are the biggest morons going.

If you can't figure out your collective society is being burdened by Capitalist healthcare.

God help us.

Individualists are savages, who think society doesn't even exist, they just understand their own, and getting theirs at all costs, not realizing a burdened society impacts all.

 

[bripat9643]

They are the same thing.

And your ignorance is revealed! Thank you for making my point for me. Do some homework and come back when you are ready to play

If they aren't the same thing then democratic socialism is literally an oxymoron.

You realize this, right?

how exactly do you figure it is an oxymoron?

Because if socialism can’t be democratic then democratic socialism is impossible.

Only, Social Democracy is the preferred method of governing in most Western Nations. So who says Socialism can't be Democratic?

"Social democracy" is a euphemism meaning "capitalism."