I don’t understand why republicans are so selective about the definition of socialism

[LaDairis]

Post 1998 GOP socialism....

Socializing senior drugs in 2004 with a GOP House, Senate, and WH, complete with drug company checks handed out on the Senate floor....

and, like all socialists, there were lies and threats of violence (that never resulted in any "impeachment" hearings either)


Inquiry Confirms Top Medicare Official Threatened Actuary Over Cost of Drug Benefits


"An internal investigation by the Department of Health and Human Services confirms that the top Medicare official threatened to fire the program's chief actuary if he told Congress that drug benefits would probably cost much more than the White House acknowledged.

A report on the investigation, issued Tuesday, says the administrator of Medicare, Thomas A. Scully, issued the threat to Richard S. Foster while lawmakers were considering huge changes in the program last year. As a result, Mr. Foster's cost estimate did not become known until after the legislation was enacted."




This is why there was the

pre 1998 GOP

and now the

post 1998 GOP



The pre 1998 GOP would NEVER HAVE DONE SHIT LIKE THAT.....

 

[Brain357]

Trump throwing support behind the Foxconn scam, now that’s socialism, trump bailing out farmers, again socialism.

 

[Yarddog]

I get it now! You mean like it's gonna be in heaven. That explains the whole thing!

Right I get that you believe me to think that, naively, socialism is some utopian, flawless idea because it makes for dismissing me easier, but that’s not the case. Obviously a socialist state can fail. Others,
However, succeed.

"socialist state can fail"

The correct sentence would be "socialist states always fail".

What do you call the Nordic countries? And, well, the US lol.

Nordic Countries are not really socialist economic systems like Cuba and Venezuela. They are capitalist, free market systems with high taxes. There is a difference. The would be American version posed by Bernie and co. would be much worse because they have a hatred towards the rich and well to do businesses. They want to do more than just tax them. They want to punish them if they had their way.

You do know they Venezuela has a private economy right? Go ahead and look that up and feel dumb once you find out. Venezuela is a failure because bad people are running it. The Nordic countries are successful. All of the above are socialist, because again, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Private economy? what the hell does that mean? Unless your saying that the government owns every major industry which is right. And that is what your socialism brings you. Nordic countries are successful because they have free market economies and their corporate taxes are much lower than here in the U.S. they would tell Bernie to go to hell

 

[Yarddog]

Trump throwing support behind the Foxconn scam, now that’s socialism, trump bailing out farmers, again socialism.

In any society where there is money taxed and set aside, yes, you will have acts that are called SOCIALIST, because that is pooled money to be used as the government decides... those acts can be agreed or disagreed on
but that in no way means that the U.S. economy should be solely a socialist one... it would suck. We need to be mostly a free market society, but there are occasions where we need to act in a socialist way. If you dont like that then stop collecting taxes.

 

[Ame®icano]

Right I get that you believe me to think that, naively, socialism is some utopian, flawless idea because it makes for dismissing me easier, but that’s not the case. Obviously a socialist state can fail. Others,
However, succeed.

"socialist state can fail"

The correct sentence would be "socialist states always fail".

What do you call the Nordic countries? And, well, the US lol.

Nordic Countries are not really socialist economic systems like Cuba and Venezuela. They are capitalist, free market systems with high taxes. There is a difference. The would be American version posed by Bernie and co. would be much worse because they have a hatred towards the rich and well to do businesses. They want to do more than just tax them. They want to punish them if they had their way.

You do know they Venezuela has a private economy right? Go ahead and look that up and feel dumb once you find out. Venezuela is a failure because bad people are running it. The Nordic countries are successful. All of the above are socialist, because again, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Private economy? what the hell does that mean? Unless your saying that the government owns every major industry which is right. And that is what your socialism brings you. Nordic countries are successful because they have free market economies and their corporate taxes are much lower than here in the U.S. they would tell Bernie to go to hell

Bernie is always referring to Nordic countries when talking about socialist programs, while his policies are firmly in line with those of Venezuela, and not with Nordic countries.

 

[Yarddog]

"socialist state can fail"

The correct sentence would be "socialist states always fail".

What do you call the Nordic countries? And, well, the US lol.

Nordic Countries are not really socialist economic systems like Cuba and Venezuela. They are capitalist, free market systems with high taxes. There is a difference. The would be American version posed by Bernie and co. would be much worse because they have a hatred towards the rich and well to do businesses. They want to do more than just tax them. They want to punish them if they had their way.

You do know they Venezuela has a private economy right? Go ahead and look that up and feel dumb once you find out. Venezuela is a failure because bad people are running it. The Nordic countries are successful. All of the above are socialist, because again, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Private economy? what the hell does that mean? Unless your saying that the government owns every major industry which is right. And that is what your socialism brings you. Nordic countries are successful because they have free market economies and their corporate taxes are much lower than here in the U.S. they would tell Bernie to go to hell

Bernie is always referring to Nordic countries when talking about socialist programs, while his policies are firmly in line with those of Venezuela, and not with Nordic countries.

He's not a sweet old man

 

[Brain357]

Trump throwing support behind the Foxconn scam, now that’s socialism, trump bailing out farmers, again socialism.

In any society where there is money taxed and set aside, yes, you will have acts that are called SOCIALIST, because that is pooled money to be used as the government decides... those acts can be agreed or disagreed on
but that in no way means that the U.S. economy should be solely a socialist one... it would suck. We need to be mostly a free market society, but there are occasions where we need to act in a socialist way. If you dont like that then stop collecting taxes.

Trump is very socialist.

 

[task0778]

Democrats are selective about the definition of damn near everything, it means one thing it it applies to us but another thing if it applies to a Trump supporter. Especially our civil rights and the concept of justice.

 

[Ame®icano]

What do you call the Nordic countries? And, well, the US lol.

Nordic Countries are not really socialist economic systems like Cuba and Venezuela. They are capitalist, free market systems with high taxes. There is a difference. The would be American version posed by Bernie and co. would be much worse because they have a hatred towards the rich and well to do businesses. They want to do more than just tax them. They want to punish them if they had their way.

You do know they Venezuela has a private economy right? Go ahead and look that up and feel dumb once you find out. Venezuela is a failure because bad people are running it. The Nordic countries are successful. All of the above are socialist, because again, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Private economy? what the hell does that mean? Unless your saying that the government owns every major industry which is right. And that is what your socialism brings you. Nordic countries are successful because they have free market economies and their corporate taxes are much lower than here in the U.S. they would tell Bernie to go to hell

Bernie is always referring to Nordic countries when talking about socialist programs, while his policies are firmly in line with those of Venezuela, and not with Nordic countries.

He's not a sweet old man

Is there any socialist that is?

 

[Billy000]

Right I get that you believe me to think that, naively, socialism is some utopian, flawless idea because it makes for dismissing me easier, but that’s not the case. Obviously a socialist state can fail. Others,
However, succeed.

"socialist state can fail"

The correct sentence would be "socialist states always fail".

What do you call the Nordic countries? And, well, the US lol.

Nordic Countries are not really socialist economic systems like Cuba and Venezuela. They are capitalist, free market systems with high taxes. There is a difference. The would be American version posed by Bernie and co. would be much worse because they have a hatred towards the rich and well to do businesses. They want to do more than just tax them. They want to punish them if they had their way.

You do know they Venezuela has a private economy right? Go ahead and look that up and feel dumb once you find out. Venezuela is a failure because bad people are running it. The Nordic countries are successful. All of the above are socialist, because again, capitalism and socialism are not mutually exclusive ideas.

Private economy? what the hell does that mean? Unless your saying that the government owns every major industry which is right. And that is what your socialism brings you. Nordic countries are successful because they have free market economies and their corporate taxes are much lower than here in the U.S. they would tell Bernie to go to hell

Uh no they have a private market like ours. This isn’t hard to figure out

 

[Uncensored2008]

Uh yeah because people pay taxes which In turn the government processes the means of services. Do you notice how the word social is In socialism? Maybe you didn’t notice. If you did notice, what did you think that word meant in this context? Socialism comes down to people ownership. People play taxes therefore they own the services that’s provided from that revenue. An authoritarian government really has nothing to do with the definition in its pure form. Authoritarianism is just a type of socialism as is democracy.

So, I pay for a Big Mac, therefore I own McDonalds.

You Stalinists are a hoot. You are so intent on lying to everyone that you look dumb as pig turds.

Means of production: Property. This property can be real property, intellectual property, raw materials,and machinery and equipment. Liberty has individuals own the means of production, socialism places ownership under kings. The dictators get various names, but they are kings. Ever since the enlightenment, the would be rulers have scrambled to put the world back the way it was, with the rulers dominating a vast peasant caste. Socialism is nothing but the repackaging of feudalism. Josef Stalin, Evil king Bernie, or Henry the VIII, it's all the same.

 

[flacaltenn]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

Hey childish one... Just watch 15 minutes here and get back to me on this "Bernie" thing.. Socialism usually cannot be contained. Because with every fuck-up to the economy or society, they TAKE additional power to "fix their boo-boos"... Sander's ENTIRE LIFE was in admiring and sucking up to socialist Authoritarians that BECAME dictators...

Building ROADS is not socialism.. THE GREEN FUCKING NEW DEAL is..

Watch this sprout and learn...

 

[Uncensored2008]

For the defense of the country? Of course. There would be no country, without taxation to fund the defense of the country.

Doesn't change the fact that our country wasn't built on socialist principals, or ideals. Instead the exact opposite is what turned this country, the youngest in a world of nations that were hundreds almost thousands of years older, into the lone super power in the world.

It was capitalism that did that, not socialism. This is why you see more socialized countries all over the world, some with vast natural resources, that still can't hold a candle to the US.

By any measure, by every perspective, we are a nation that is only wealthy and a world power today, because of capitalism. Not socialism. Only the most ignorant, and arrogant, could even pretend to claim otherwise.

Again, you people really don’t understand the concept of socialism. It’s a very broad term, but paying taxes regardless of the purpose is SOCIALSM. Moreover, socialism and capitalism while different, are not mutually exclusive ideas. These are ideas that have coexisted since the beginning of this country. I mean my god, what do you think our monetary system is? It’s socialism.

Not really. You could consider it a small part of socialism. Tax is not automatically socialism.

Now I do agree that taxation can be used as a step towards socialism. Obviously taxation by its very nature, makes you more and more enslaved to the state. That's true.

But socialism is either the direct ownership of, or control of, the means of production and distribution.

It should also be mentioned, that you need to also consider the purpose, or motivation of socialism. Saying that taxation equals socialism, can be ridiculous, depending on what the taxes are being used for.

Socialism's stated, but never even remotely achieved goal, is equality. We're going to eliminate the classes, and have everyone live in perfect community.

To that end, you can use tax money to try and equalize people. By taking money from working people, and giving it to non-working people, for example, things can be more 'equal', even if that is entirely immoral.

But there is other things you can do with tax money, that have nothing to do with advancing socialism, but rather the opposite. For example, protecting property rights, by hiring police, and sending thieves, vandals, and burglars to prison.

In that case, tax money is used specifically to make society more capitalist, and less socialist.

Or even just law enforcement in general, benefits everyone. Sending murderers into prison, benefits the poorest of people, as much as the richest. In short, it's a function for the "general welfare". Sound familiar?

So things like courts, and prisons, and national defense, and so such, can all be for the general welfare. Because whether they agree, or realize it, everyone benefits from such things.

But none of those are socialist in nature. The poor, or the rich, neither becomes more 'equal' because of any of those things. None of those things attempt to deal with 'class' based societies, or eliminating inequality (which is immoral anyway).

So saying taxes is socialism.... no, not really. It can be, depending on how you impose the taxes, and on how you spend the taxes But there is nothing that makes taxation itself, inherently socialist.

Dude literally every institution you mentioned is socialism. The right seems to have this idea in their minds that if a government institution is “good” like fire, police, or the military it isn’t socialism.

What you are describing is communism, which granted, is a form of socialism, but it doesn’t somehow summarize the definition. Any program funded (taxation) and utilized by the people is socialism. There’s no getting around that. You thinking a public funded police force is not socialism does not make any goddamn sense just because you think having one is a good idea.

So in your world...... enforcing the law, is a means of production? How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

.... sigh.... So I think we're done here, since you can't even read the dictionary definition of the word you are using. No point in listening to anything you have to say on the topic, given you can't even copy and paste the dictionary to make yourself look half way informed.

You’re leaving out A key part of the definition which is “social ownership.” As citizens we technically “own” the police force because our taxed income pays for it. We then, in turn, utilize the police. That’s SOCIALISM.

Tell you what Comrade, you march up to a cop and tell him that you own him....

 

[whitehall]

Sanders ran for office as a socialist. Perhaps angry lefties can enlighten us about the new sensitive socialist movement before they criticize republicans for supporting old fashioned capitalism.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Not really. You could consider it a small part of socialism. Tax is not automatically socialism.

Now I do agree that taxation can be used as a step towards socialism. Obviously taxation by its very nature, makes you more and more enslaved to the state. That's true.

But socialism is either the direct ownership of, or control of, the means of production and distribution.

It should also be mentioned, that you need to also consider the purpose, or motivation of socialism. Saying that taxation equals socialism, can be ridiculous, depending on what the taxes are being used for.

Socialism's stated, but never even remotely achieved goal, is equality. We're going to eliminate the classes, and have everyone live in perfect community.

To that end, you can use tax money to try and equalize people. By taking money from working people, and giving it to non-working people, for example, things can be more 'equal', even if that is entirely immoral.

But there is other things you can do with tax money, that have nothing to do with advancing socialism, but rather the opposite. For example, protecting property rights, by hiring police, and sending thieves, vandals, and burglars to prison.

In that case, tax money is used specifically to make society more capitalist, and less socialist.

Or even just law enforcement in general, benefits everyone. Sending murderers into prison, benefits the poorest of people, as much as the richest. In short, it's a function for the "general welfare". Sound familiar?

So things like courts, and prisons, and national defense, and so such, can all be for the general welfare. Because whether they agree, or realize it, everyone benefits from such things.

But none of those are socialist in nature. The poor, or the rich, neither becomes more 'equal' because of any of those things. None of those things attempt to deal with 'class' based societies, or eliminating inequality (which is immoral anyway).

So saying taxes is socialism.... no, not really. It can be, depending on how you impose the taxes, and on how you spend the taxes But there is nothing that makes taxation itself, inherently socialist.

Dude literally every institution you mentioned is socialism. The right seems to have this idea in their minds that if a government institution is “good” like fire, police, or the military it isn’t socialism.

What you are describing is communism, which granted, is a form of socialism, but it doesn’t somehow summarize the definition. Any program funded (taxation) and utilized by the people is socialism. There’s no getting around that. You thinking a public funded police force is not socialism does not make any goddamn sense just because you think having one is a good idea.

So in your world...... enforcing the law, is a means of production? How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

.... sigh.... So I think we're done here, since you can't even read the dictionary definition of the word you are using. No point in listening to anything you have to say on the topic, given you can't even copy and paste the dictionary to make yourself look half way informed.

You’re leaving out A key part of the definition which is “social ownership.” As citizens we technically “own” the police force because our taxed income pays for it. We then, in turn, utilize the police. That’s SOCIALISM.

How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

“social ownership.”,,,,,, of what.....? "the means of production and distribution of goods"....

Cars, homes.... yeah, again, how much production has the military and police force created? Oh right, they don't produce the goods that build the wealthy of the country. Right.

So.... again... learn to read the dictionary.

Lol okay. Here it is:


n

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Bullshit


n

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the state or central authority.

Definition of SOCIALISM
You're a liar as well as stupid.

 

[flacaltenn]

Not really. You could consider it a small part of socialism. Tax is not automatically socialism.

Now I do agree that taxation can be used as a step towards socialism. Obviously taxation by its very nature, makes you more and more enslaved to the state. That's true.

But socialism is either the direct ownership of, or control of, the means of production and distribution.

It should also be mentioned, that you need to also consider the purpose, or motivation of socialism. Saying that taxation equals socialism, can be ridiculous, depending on what the taxes are being used for.

Socialism's stated, but never even remotely achieved goal, is equality. We're going to eliminate the classes, and have everyone live in perfect community.

To that end, you can use tax money to try and equalize people. By taking money from working people, and giving it to non-working people, for example, things can be more 'equal', even if that is entirely immoral.

But there is other things you can do with tax money, that have nothing to do with advancing socialism, but rather the opposite. For example, protecting property rights, by hiring police, and sending thieves, vandals, and burglars to prison.

In that case, tax money is used specifically to make society more capitalist, and less socialist.

Or even just law enforcement in general, benefits everyone. Sending murderers into prison, benefits the poorest of people, as much as the richest. In short, it's a function for the "general welfare". Sound familiar?

So things like courts, and prisons, and national defense, and so such, can all be for the general welfare. Because whether they agree, or realize it, everyone benefits from such things.

But none of those are socialist in nature. The poor, or the rich, neither becomes more 'equal' because of any of those things. None of those things attempt to deal with 'class' based societies, or eliminating inequality (which is immoral anyway).

So saying taxes is socialism.... no, not really. It can be, depending on how you impose the taxes, and on how you spend the taxes But there is nothing that makes taxation itself, inherently socialist.

Dude literally every institution you mentioned is socialism. The right seems to have this idea in their minds that if a government institution is “good” like fire, police, or the military it isn’t socialism.

What you are describing is communism, which granted, is a form of socialism, but it doesn’t somehow summarize the definition. Any program funded (taxation) and utilized by the people is socialism. There’s no getting around that. You thinking a public funded police force is not socialism does not make any goddamn sense just because you think having one is a good idea.

So in your world...... enforcing the law, is a means of production? How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

.... sigh.... So I think we're done here, since you can't even read the dictionary definition of the word you are using. No point in listening to anything you have to say on the topic, given you can't even copy and paste the dictionary to make yourself look half way informed.

You’re leaving out A key part of the definition which is “social ownership.” As citizens we technically “own” the police force because our taxed income pays for it. We then, in turn, utilize the police. That’s SOCIALISM.

How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

“social ownership.”,,,,,, of what.....? "the means of production and distribution of goods"....

Cars, homes.... yeah, again, how much production has the military and police force created? Oh right, they don't produce the goods that build the wealthy of the country. Right.

So.... again... learn to read the dictionary.

Lol okay. Here it is:


n

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

Ain't nothing I want to "own" in common with you and a bunch of gang bangers.. Just isn't.. No sale...

 

[Billy000]

To them, it’s a completely leftwing ideology when in reality it’s been part of the framework of the country since the beginning. The founders had socialist ideas after all. They basically were leftists. It’s also stupid to say that communism and socialism are the same thing when in reality communism is simply an example of socialism. Socialism itself is a very broad term that can’t be defined simply.

Also, isn’t Trump the bigger socialist than Obama? His bailout to farmers was twice as big as Obama’s bailout. Are republicans going to pretend that isn’t socialism?

Hey childish one... Just watch 15 minutes here and get back to me on this "Bernie" thing.. Socialism usually cannot be contained. Because with every fuck-up to the economy or society, they TAKE additional power to "fix their boo-boos"... Sander's ENTIRE LIFE was in admiring and sucking up to socialist Authoritarians that BECAME dictators...

Building ROADS is not socialism.. THE GREEN FUCKING NEW DEAL is..

Watch this sprout and learn...

Okay I watched the video. Here are my takeaways:

1) Bernie praised certain aspects of socialist governments. Did he sugarcoat it a little? Yeah. His main point, however, is that he was criticizing Reagan’s own biased view and the wealthy controlling those nations previously

2) Bernie’s American platform speaks for itself. It has nothing to do with overturning capitalism. It is strictly about social democratic principles. I mean you would have to be a moron to think Bernie could even turn the US into the Soviet Union. Clearly he doesn’t want to either way.

3) Bernie NEVER said hey let’s turn our government into the Nordic model. He just said he admires the social programs offered there. It doesn’t matter what the Danish leader says however. The Nordic system is socialist to a degree as is the US.

4) Your video conveniently left out the fact that while taxes are higher in those countries, the median income is still higher AFTER taxes than it is in the US. Bernie also wants to address income disparity. The video also seems to contradict itself in its narrative. On the one hand, it recognizes those countries as being great for business yet also points out the high tax rates. Either way, they have a better quality of life than Americans do.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who said anything about the "black guy?

You guys do, every time you try to pretend history started in 2017.

Funny you said that, since you think that history started in 1964.

 

[Ame®icano]

Who said anything about the "black guy?

You guys do, every time you try to pretend history started in 2017.

No, I was making the point that Trump has done some good things with the VA. Maybe you don't want to acknowledge it because, I dunno, maybe because he is NOT black. See how intellectually dishonest it is to bring race into every argument?

You know, we could solve "climate crisis" if we design jets that runs on liberal hypocrisy.

 

[Andylusion]

So in your world...... enforcing the law, is a means of production? How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

.... sigh.... So I think we're done here, since you can't even read the dictionary definition of the word you are using. No point in listening to anything you have to say on the topic, given you can't even copy and paste the dictionary to make yourself look half way informed.

You’re leaving out A key part of the definition which is “social ownership.” As citizens we technically “own” the police force because our taxed income pays for it. We then, in turn, utilize the police. That’s SOCIALISM.

How many homes have been built by the police force again?

How many civilian cars carrying people to work, have been built by the military?

“social ownership.”,,,,,, of what.....? "the means of production and distribution of goods"....

Cars, homes.... yeah, again, how much production has the military and police force created? Oh right, they don't produce the goods that build the wealthy of the country. Right.

So.... again... learn to read the dictionary.

Lol okay. Here it is:


n

1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole

I get it now! You mean like it's gonna be in heaven. That explains the whole thing!

Right I get that you believe me to think that, naively, socialism is some utopian, flawless idea because it makes for dismissing me easier, but that’s not the case. Obviously a socialist state can fail. Others,
However, succeed.

Name one single socialist state that has succeeded. Name one. Just one.