Now that we have quite a few people on record saying that NOBODY is pushing Socialism...

[Lesh]

That's the kind of checking account I want.

Ha. Yeah. But we can't have one.

To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”

Of course, The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see?

Let's not forget that when those bonds are paid back...as quickly as that money came into existence...it disappears.
That's a crucial understand that everyone misses

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government owning the means of production is the very definition of socialism. If not, you should have no problem with the proposed amendment.

There are numerous nuanced definitions as noted previously. By that definition it ain't happening here...and is not worth discussing

So, you voted "yes" in the poll?

 

[Richard-H]

You are talking about communism like all GOP dupes.

Government owning the means of production is the very definition of socialism. If not, you should have no problem with the proposed amendment.

so·cial·ism
Dictionary result for socialism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

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

According to the above definition Regulation constitutes socialism, so by that definition the United States has been socialist for a very, very long time.

If you beef is with the idea of "Government owning the means of production" - you can stop worrying - nobody wants that.

Don't get your bowels in an uproar over semantics.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]

Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformistpolitics as a means to establish socialism.[3]

Workplace democracy - Wikipedia

 

[Lesh]

So, you voted "yes" in the poll?

What part of not worth discussing...did you miss.

To have such an Amendment there would need to be a concrete definition that passes all sorts of tests.
Got one?

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Implementation of real Socialism would require nationalization of every industry, and confiscation of all real property (most importantly, farms), for full implementation.

These would be prohibited by the First, Tenth, and Fifth Amendments.

You bet your ass it would require a "Constitutional Amendment" to move forward with Socialism. Actually, a whole new Constitution would be in order.

But first, I would like someone to identify a country where the quality of life IMPROVED after implementation of Socialism.

It almost destroyed Sweden.
Despite the left, in particular Bernie consistently trying to hold up Sweden as an example of how socialism works - Sweden is not a socialist county. It is actually a more free market system than the semi-closed system in America.
From the 1950's - 80's Sweden was a socialist country. And it showed. Long bread lines, a bankrupt government, and hordes of unemployed government dependents. But that changed. Swedish people voted for conservatives which resulted in the government selling corporations to private individuals, they privatized a great deal of the pensions system, private groups revitalized industries and finance.
The result was dramatic rise in employment, dramatic drop in welfare roles and a pension system that is the envy of the world.
Sweden embraced free markets and is now better off than most.

 

[Lesh]

You are talking about communism like all GOP dupes.

Government owning the means of production is the very definition of socialism. If not, you should have no problem with the proposed amendment.

so·cial·ism
Dictionary result for socialism
/ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
noun

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

According to the above definition Regulation constitutes socialism, so by that definition the United States has been socialist for a very, very long time.

If you beef is with the idea of "Government owning the means of production" - you can stop worrying - nobody wants that.

Don't get your bowels in an uproar over semantics.

Exactly. By that definition we already HAVE socialism mixed with capitalism. The only discussion is deciding HOW much socialism we require

 

[Richard-H]

Have to end the Federal Reserve first, Bootney.

As it is, we already have central economic planning by a central bank. So, they already have a socialist monetary policy in place, hell, they're half way there, man.

So, other.

The Federal Reserve is the fourth U.S. central bank. The first three were shutdown because of geniuses like you - and every time a major economic disaster followed. That's why we keep creating new ones.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the kind of checking account I want.

Ha. Yeah. But we can't have one.

To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”

Of course, The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see?

I do see, but the system has worked pretty well so far, hasn't it?

 

[Cellblock2429]

And we have to overturn Santa Clara County vs Pacific Railroad, too. That's when corporations became people on a clerical error, nobody's ever challenged it either. Crazy.

/----/ A great discussion of Corporations and the Constitution. More than you'd ever read.
Are Corporations People?

But there was no clerical error: Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution. Without this classification, Gubmint could not tax and regulate corporations any more than they could tax and regulate a tree or rock. Nor could you sure a corporation since they have no Constitutional standing. Is that what Libtards really want?

 

[Richard-H]

We have to have some socialist type of policies to ensure the public welfare. Like social security and medicare. Also police and fire depts as well as IRS and the dept of treasury to count the monies collected and how we spend it.

The IRS is just the Federal Reserve's collection wing, all it does is steal and redistribute the fruits of our labor over to the Treasury so that the Treasury can pay the principal plus interest on that bond that the Federal Reserve bought from a bank with a check which is drawn on an account that has nothing in it in order to pay for all of that free stuff the politicians ran on.

If you don't like the Federal Reserve, the IRS or the Treasury, then do not accept or offer U.S. currency (or any other government) currency for your transactions.

There is no law saying that you can not write you own notes or accept anyone else's notes.

But if you do your transactions in any government currency, then STFU!

 

[Natural Citizen]

/----/ A great discussion of Corporations and the Constitution. More than you'd ever read.
Are Corporations People?

But there was no clerical error: Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution. Without this classification, Gubmint could not tax and regulate corporations any more than they could tax and regulate a tree or rock. Nor could you sure a corporation since they have no Constitutional standing. Is that what Libtards really want?

It's a legal fiction. It needs to be challenged.

 

[toomuchtime_]

That's the kind of checking account I want.

Ha. Yeah. But we can't have one.

To steal a quote from the Boston Federal Reserve's ''Putting it Simply", they say that ''When you or I write a check, there must be sufficient funds in our account to cover the check, but when the Federal Reserve writes a check, there is no bank deposit on which that check is drawn. When the Federal Reserve writes a check, it is creating ''money.”

Of course, The Federal Reserve then hands those checks to the banks and at this point ''currency'' springs into existence. The banks then take that ''currency'' and buy more bonds at the next Treasury auction. You see?

Let's not forget that when those bonds are paid back...as quickly as that money came into existence...it disappears.
That's a crucial understand that everyone misses

Not true, as bonds reach maturity, the debt is refinanced, which means that now that the economy is growing faster and interest rates are increasing, when that debt is refinanced it will be at a higher interest rates and we are going to have to borrow even more just to pay the greater interest rate. In theory, the rate of growth of the economy, and thus of federal tax revenues, will run roughly the same as the rate of growth of the debt, including the higher interest rates, and so thing will stay in balance.

In theory, that is.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

And we have to overturn Santa Clara County vs Pacific Railroad, too. That's when corporations became people on a clerical error, nobody's ever challenged it either. Crazy.

/----/ A great discussion of Corporations and the Constitution. More than you'd ever read.
Are Corporations People?

But there was no clerical error: Supreme Court was reported to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause granted constitutional protections to corporations as well as to natural persons, although numerous other cases, since Dartmouth College v. Woodward in 1819, had recognized that corporations were entitled to some of the protections of the Constitution. Without this classification, Gubmint could not tax and regulate corporations any more than they could tax and regulate a tree or rock. Nor could you sure a corporation since they have no Constitutional standing. Is that what Libtards really want?

It's a legal fiction. It needs to be challenged.

/---/ Without Constitutional protection, the Gubmit could strip away a company's property since there is no equal protection. Now try and justify that if you can.

 

[Pilot1]

I have no problem with government guaranteeing loans to strategic, critical companies but they shouldn't be picking winners and losers like Obama did with Solyndra. Remember them. Cost the taxpayers greatly

 

[Natural Citizen]

If you don't like the Federal Reserve, the IRS or the Treasury, then do not accept or offer U.S. currency (or any other government) currency for your transactions.

There is no law saying that you can not write you own notes or accept anyone else's notes.

But if you do your transactions in any government currency, then STFU!

That's one of the most shallow things I've ever read on the Internet, Richard.

 

[Lesh]

Implementation of real Socialism would require nationalization of every industry, and confiscation of all real property (most importantly, farms), for full implementation.

These would be prohibited by the First, Tenth, and Fifth Amendments.

You bet your ass it would require a "Constitutional Amendment" to move forward with Socialism. Actually, a whole new Constitution would be in order.

But first, I would like someone to identify a country where the quality of life IMPROVED after implementation of Socialism.

It almost destroyed Sweden.
Despite the left, in particular Bernie consistently trying to hold up Sweden as an example of how socialism works - Sweden is not a socialist county. It is actually a more free market system than the semi-closed system in America.
From the 1950's - 80's Sweden was a socialist country. And it showed. Long bread lines, a bankrupt government, and hordes of unemployed government dependents. But that changed. Swedish people voted for conservatives which resulted in the government selling corporations to private individuals, they privatized a great deal of the pensions system, private groups revitalized industries and finance.
The result was dramatic rise in employment, dramatic drop in welfare roles and a pension system that is the envy of the world.
Sweden embraced free markets and is now better off than most.

Sweden is more socialist than we are

Nordic model - Wikipedia

But again...we're talking about degrees...not whether

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

According to the above definition Regulation constitutes socialism, so by that definition the United States has been socialist for a very, very long time.

well I guess that would depend on what you mean by "regulate" in that description.

If by "regular" you mean put out some rules for safety, that would not be controlling the means of production. If by "regulate" you mean government decides who can own the means of production and what they can do or how much they can make, that is a completely different concept.

Owning and controlling.

 

[Richard-H]

The whole socialist vs. anti-socialist argument is bogus.

Everybody has their own definition of socialism - so we're all effectively discussing different topics.

The 'liberal' view of Democratic Socialism consists only of taxation, regulation and government assistance programs.

The 'Conservative' view is government seizure of property, government owned and controlled business, and absolute government dictatorship.

Nobody wants socialism as Conservatives define it.

Conservatives do not want socialism as liberals define it, while liberals do want 'socialism' as they define it.

The truly bogus part is that Conservatives pretend not to be able to distinguish the two - and they repeatedly use arguments against the conservative definition as justification to stop the liberal definition.

Democratic socialism is a political philosophy that advocates political democracy alongside social ownership of the means of production,[1] with an emphasis on self-management and democratic management of economic institutions within a market or some form of decentralized planned socialist economy.[2]

Democratic socialists hold that capitalism is inherently incompatible with what they hold to be the democratic values of liberty, equality and solidarity; and that these ideals can only be achieved through the realization of a socialist society. Democratic socialism can be supportive of either revolutionary or reformistpolitics as a means to establish socialism.[3]

Workplace democracy - Wikipedia

Once again, your getting your bowels in an uproar over semantics. Did you consider that liberal Americans are perhaps not using the term 'Democratic Socialism' correctly - at least not in accordance with your lame effort to demonize it.

The fact is that if you were to discuss Democratic Socialism according to how liberals define it, you would not have much of an argument against it.

 

[Lesh]

I have no problem with government guaranteeing loans to strategic, critical companies but they shouldn't be picking winners and losers like Obama did with Solyndra. Remember them. Cost the taxpayers greatly

Actually the program that Solyndra was part of performed well in the overall. Start ups, especially in new tech sometimes fail. That's not unusual

Bloomberg - Are you a robot?