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

[francoHFW]

Cons like to throw around the word “socialism “ so much . But then constantly change the definition when it doesn’t suit them .

Always ends up being communism LOL, the poor Cold War GOP doups...

 

[francoHFW]

According to socialists in the modern world, not cold war dinosaur GOP dupe world, we will be socialists if we had universal healthcare. Then we can figure out why we are the only modern country, and the richest among them, to not have a living wage paid parental leave cheap college and training, good vacations and infrastructure, a National ID card that would end illegal immigration and workers, and taxing the rich more than the non-rich... Great GOP scumbag mess we have going here.... Thanks ignoramus GOP dupes.

You dummy......banks never did better then when under Obama!!



And you call other people "dupes".

What happened to your garbage propaganda that the Obama economy was a disaster, super duper? Yes the GOP giveaway to the rich continues...

 

[Harpy Eagle]

According to socialists in the modern world, not cold war dinosaur GOP dupe world, we will be socialists if we had universal healthcare.

When government pays the bill and decides on prices, government is in control of the means of production.

While the government does not decide on prices of crops and livestock, they subsidies the farmers/ranchers to keep the price in a certain range, never letting it veer too far up or down.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

While the government does not decide on prices of crops and livestock, they subsidies the farmers/ranchers to keep the price in a certain range, never letting it veer too far up or down.

But, that is not owning the means of production. It's certainly not a purely free market, but the farmers/ranchers still own the means of production.

 

[TNHarley]

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.

Healthcare.

 

[Lesh]

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

Let me know those terms. They matter

 

[Harpy Eagle]

While the government does not decide on prices of crops and livestock, they subsidies the farmers/ranchers to keep the price in a certain range, never letting it veer too far up or down.

But, that is not owning the means of production. It's certainly not a purely free market, but the farmers/ranchers still own the means of production.

Ok.

Then by this standard, Universal Healthcare in which the government does not own the doctors and hospitals or other medical care facilitates, but just works as the insurance company would not fall under Socialism either.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Then by this standard, Universal Healthcare in which the government does not own the doctors and hospitals or other medical care facilitates, but just works as the insurance company would not fall under Socialism either.

Do doctors, hospitals, etc get to treat as they see fit and charge what they believe is appropriate?

 

[dblack]

I'm not sure what hair you're trying to split, but yeah. People are the ultimate means of production.

They can still choose grow corn even when government offers them money not to do so, right?

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Then by this standard, Universal Healthcare in which the government does not own the doctors and hospitals or other medical care facilitates, but just works as the insurance company would not fall under Socialism either.

Do doctors, hospitals, etc get to treat as they see fit and charge what they believe is appropriate?

At the present time they do not.

 

[dblack]

While the government does not decide on prices of crops and livestock, they subsidies the farmers/ranchers to keep the price in a certain range, never letting it veer too far up or down.

But, that is not owning the means of production. It's certainly not a purely free market, but the farmers/ranchers still own the means of production.

Ok.

Then by this standard, Universal Healthcare in which the government does not own the doctors and hospitals or other medical care facilitates, but just works as the insurance company would not fall under Socialism either.

This is why you don't open the door in the first place. The government shouldn't be in the business of funneling tax payer money to special interest groups, regardless of the "compelling interest". It's always used as a lever for control.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

But we're talking about owning and controlling the means of production.

 

[Kittymom1026]

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.

So you want to end SS and Medicare for the millions of seniors who have paid into it for their entire lives and now finally get to benefit from it? What about the disabled kids who also get SS benefits? You know, the ones you insist should be born but after that, they're on their own?
Who was it, Paul Ryan who benefited from SS when he was young and is now dead set against? Typical, I've got mine, so screw you.
I worked every day of my life since I was 19 and paid into SS every.single.day. So now that I benefit from it, you think it's socialism?
And for those of you who also think like that, when it's time for you to collect your SS, please tell the government you think it's the evil socialism and refuse to collect it, okay?

 

[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.

So you want to end SS and Medicare for the millions of seniors who have paid into it for their entire lives and now finally get to benefit from it?

Of course not. Society would have to be "weaned off" of these programs gradually, with people who paid into it at least getting their money back.

What about the disabled kids who also get SS benefits? You know, the ones you insist should be born but after that, they're on their own?

I have lots of ideas on this. As I'm sure you do. We, all of us, should make them goals. But they shouldn't be enforced by government.

Also, fwiw, I'm not a pro-lifer. Or a Republican.

 

[dblack]

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

But we're talking about owning and controlling the means of production.

Exactly. If you're telling farmers what to grow, or not grow, that's control. The conceit that rewarding them for following orders (with taxes that were originally taken from them in the first place) is any different than punishing them for refusing, is delusional.

 

[Dan Stubbs]

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.

It seems the Rothschild have control of the bank, and please note Prior to the Killing of Kennady he was going to change the bank over to Government control....Hint could have killed him.

 

[Lesh]

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

But we're talking about owning and controlling the means of production.

Nope...we're talking about "regulating"

To you that's socialism. OK fine. How much socialism do we require?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes. You're always "free" do defy the dictates of government, and you're free to pay the price. It sounds like you're one of the folks who thinks tax incentives and mandates are somehow different. They're not. If you authorize government to do one, you've authorized them to do the other - they are essential the same thing with differ PR.

But we're talking about owning and controlling the means of production.

Exactly. If you're telling farmers what to grow, or not grow, that's control. The conceit that rewarding them for following orders (with taxes that were originally taken from them in the first place) is any different than punishing them for refusing, is delusional.

I don't disagree.

.

 

[Kittymom1026]

According to socialists in the modern world, not cold war dinosaur GOP dupe world, we will be socialists if we had universal healthcare.

When government pays the bill and decides on prices, government is in control of the means of production.

Unemployment compensation for simply being unemployed, is more market friendly by solving for a simple poverty of capital in our Institution of money based markets.

Unemployment is for those who are suddenly unemployed through no fault of their own. I.E. when a business goes out of business, or is only a seasonal business. And it can only be collected for a short period of time and the person collecting it has to prove they're actively looking for another job. The last time I heard, here in NC, they had to go on 5 interviews a week. they do so through the unemployment office and it's documented. And finally, it's really hard to even get it because even when you should automatically qualify for it, it can be refused.

 

[Mousterian]

'Socialism' is a trigger word, demonised by Hannity et al, twisted to mean 'Total Government Control', and the sheep who rely on these sources for their world-view are alarmed by the prospect.
Hardly surprising, that's what happens when we let TV news take over our thinking, and only tune in to Faux News.