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

[Lesh]

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.

"Regulating" means government regulation. That's socialism.

Any Amendment outlawing "socialism" would also outlaw regulation. Is that what you advocate?

 

[francoHFW]

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.

In super dupe world...everywhere else socialism is just always Democratic Fair capitalism..."we are all socialists now!"--Finland prime minister when ObamaCare passed.... If you think Bernie Sanders and Olivia are for communism, you are a perfect GOP dupe ignoramus....

 

[dblack]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

In theory we don't need one. The Constitution doesn't empower government to run the economy. But yeah, for clarity's sake - I'd love to see such an amendment.

 

[Lesh]

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.

Regulation is 'controlling' to some extent. If your talking about absolute control, then, as I've said before, no one wants that.

Once again - we're disagreeing on semantics, not government policies.

the right wing loves to quibble about degrees of socialism.

No actually they don't. They throw the word around as if we all have the same understanding of it. We don't.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

How do you define "controlling"?

Would that include the Fed Govt giving the Ag industry 20 billion plus a year to help control what they grow and do not grow?

 

[dblack]

I see we have the usual flimming and flamming from the socialist equivocators and apologists.

 

[danielpalos]

We have a socialized, Command Economy. Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Stopping Government non-capital market spending almost ushered in a recession.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

"Regulating" means government regulation. That's socialism.

Fine. If you want to be completely obtuse, good.

no government regulation of anything ever.

Does that make you happy? Does that get us anywhere?

I specifically said that regulating for safety it not owning and controlling the means of production. You love throwing in that regulating word to play semantics. You were doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

We have a socialized, Command Economy. Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Stopping Government non-capital market spending almost ushered in a recession.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Nobody knows what the fuck any of that shit means. You need to explain yourself a little better.

 

[Lesh]

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

They take themselves seriously. God knows why

 

[dblack]

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.

Well, the Constitution authorizes minting money. And we're talking about federal here, so police and fire depts wouldn't be impacted. Arguably, a ban on socialism would end social security and medicare, but I think that would be a good thing.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

Regulation is 'controlling' to some extent. If your talking about absolute control, then, as I've said before, no one wants that.

Once again - we're disagreeing on semantics, not government policies.

the right wing loves to quibble about degrees of socialism.

No actually they don't. They throw the word around as if we all have the same understanding of it. We don't.

simply using the Other Peoples' money and having to "worry about running out of it", is Socialism.

 

[Lesh]

"Regulating" means government regulation. That's socialism.

Fine. If you want to be completely obtuse, good.

no government regulation of anything ever.

Does that make you happy? Does that get us anywhere?

I specifically said that regulating for safety it not owning and controlling the means of production. You love throwing in that regulating word to play semantics. You were doing the very thing you accuse me of doing.

.

It's "clearer" and total insanity. That was what I meant. Any Amendment would have to break out exactly what is meant. Without that all regulation goes out the window. And we would do this why exactly?

There is no actual danger of a government takeover of the "means of production"

 

[Lesh]

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.

Regulation is 'controlling' to some extent. If your talking about absolute control, then, as I've said before, no one wants that.

Once again - we're disagreeing on semantics, not government policies.

the right wing loves to quibble about degrees of socialism.

No actually they don't. They throw the word around as if we all have the same understanding of it. We don't.

simply using the Other Peoples' money and having to "worry about running out of it", is Socialism.

WTF are you talking about?

Making up your own definitions?

Never mind. I read the rest of your idiotic posts on this thread and others

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

How do you define "controlling"?

Would that include the Fed Govt giving the Ag industry 20 billion plus a year to help control what they grow and do not grow?

Telling people they can't produce certain food goods would be socialism, yes. (looking at you FDR)

 

[Lesh]

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.

Well, the Constitution authorizes minting money. And we're talking about federal here, so police and fire depts wouldn't be impacted. Arguably, a ban on socialism would end social security and medicare, but I think that would be a good thing.

Most sane people don't. And it would end a lot more than that

 

[danielpalos]

We have a socialized, Command Economy. Congress commands fiscal policy and the Fed commands monetary policy.

Stopping Government non-capital market spending almost ushered in a recession.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics.

Nobody knows what the fuck any of that shit means. You need to explain yourself a little better.

why allege you care about the economy.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

There is no actual danger of a government takeover of the "means of production"

Then you would vote "yes" in the poll? (Assuming we clarified certain terms)

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

why allege you care about the economy.

Where did you get the idea that I do not care about the economy?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Would you agree to a Constitutional Amendment banning socialism or anything like it?

How do you define "controlling"?

Would that include the Fed Govt giving the Ag industry 20 billion plus a year to help control what they grow and do not grow?

Telling people they can't produce certain food goods would be socialism, yes. (looking at you FDR)

what about encouraging them not to by giving them money if they do not?