POLL: The GOP and "Socialism"

[dblack]

Joe was going on in another thread with the usual line about how capitalists are just leeches - how they produce nothing and simply profit off the backs of employees. But that's clearly bunk. Capitalists make the most important decisions in our economy. And the premise of socialism is that government should make those decisions rather than individuals. I think it's a bad idea. Unless there is wide consensus that a given service should be considered part of "the commons", government shouldn't be given the power to control it.

Uh, guy, Capitalists are leeches living off the hard work of the rest of us.

And they DO make the most important decisions in our economy. THAT'S THE PROBLEM.

That's why we have the top 400 people in the country who have more wealth than the bottom 40%. Because those are the people we let make the decisions.

Again, you'd understand this if your Billionaire Sugar Daddies didn't spend so much time spreading Libertard propaganda.

Your fantasies are getting away from you.

 

[MarcATL]

Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.

As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.

How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.

Not 1 year, but certainly not 10 years either.

It'll take a couple elections of them losing badly, while running on trying to scare Americans with that term, for it to start to sink in.

 

[dblack]

The flaw of your argument. The government is the people.

Nope. That's the flaw or your argument.

 

[dblack]

DBlack thinks the government is mysterious cabals of lizard people who are against us.

Nope. I think, when working as advertised, it's the majority of the people forcing their will on the rest of us. That's assuming it hasn't been co-opted by lobbyists and interest groups.

 

[dblack]

DBlack thinks the government is mysterious cabals of lizard people who are against us.

Nope. I think, when working as advertised, it's the majority of the people forcing their will on the rest of us. That's assuming it hasn't been co-opted by lobbyists and interest groups.

And this really is central to the debate over socialism. It asserts democratic control over capital via the government, rather than allowing it to be managed collaboratively by the people. And the problem with democratic control is that it mandates conformity. We do whatever the majority wants and we're stuck with it.

With a free market there is no forced conformity. If 60% of the people want blue jeans and 40% want slacks, we'll get some of each. If we control it democratically, we'll just get blue jeans. That's a trivial example, but it highlights the risk of 'democratizing' something that doesn't call for conformity. It puts all our eggs in one basket and stifles alternatives.

We're having the same debate over health care. If the socialists get their way, we'll get a single, monolithic state solution - approved of by the majority - and we'll be stuck with it. If it's a mistake, we're all going down. If the people remain free to solve the problem however they like, we're not committed to one course. We can adjust as need be and find what works best.

 

[JoeB131]

Poor people were not mentioned in my statement.

Naw, man, you were very good at using code words like "untenable". and "unqualified".

You might as well been honest and said, "The Gummit forced banks to loan to the Darkies" and the usual racist nonsense you heard on Hate Radio to excuse the greed of the One Percent.

 

[JoeB131]

Nope. I think, when working as advertised, it's the majority of the people forcing their will on the rest of us. That's assuming it hasn't been co-opted by lobbyists and interest groups.

Majority rule is just fine. thanks.

But you do have a point, the Rich have co-opted it, by spending millions getting stupid white people to vote against their own economic interests. Sugar daddies like the Koch's tell you that your "Freedom" is being imposed upon when they can't dump toxic shit into your water supply, and you swallow it like a big old glass of tainted water. Yummy, arsenic!

And this really is central to the debate over socialism. It asserts democratic control over capital via the government, rather than allowing it to be managed collaboratively by the people. And the problem with democratic control is that it mandates conformity. We do whatever the majority wants and we're stuck with it.

Which I have no real problem with. Of course, thanks to the Koch brothers, you think it's just fine when the rich run roughshod over you because they have more Money and "Freedom".

With a free market there is no forced conformity. If 60% of the people want blue jeans and 40% want slacks, we'll get some of each. If we control it democratically, we'll just get blue jeans. That's a trivial example, but it highlights the risk of 'democratizing' something that doesn't call for conformity. It puts all our eggs in one basket and stifles alternatives.

That's not a trivial example, that's a retarded example. A free market usually means that the wealthy will shove a product down our throats even if it isn't good for us (Tobacco, guns, unsafe cars, unhealthy foods).

We're having the same debate over health care. If the socialists get their way, we'll get a single, monolithic state solution - approved of by the majority - and we'll be stuck with it. If it's a mistake, we're all going down. If the people remain free to solve the problem however they like, we're not committed to one course. We can adjust as need be and find what works best.

Oh, I'm sorry, you really are fucking retarded!

What we have now is wonderful health care if you are rich. Okay health care if you are middle class and you get insurance from your job, and your insurance company decides that it doesn't need to screw you to make their salaries, and if you are poor, you show up at an emergency room and hope they don't amputate your fucking legs.

It would be worse if we didn't have "socialized" medicine. You'd be treatable until proven broke. It's why 62% of bankruptcies are caused by medical crisis, and most of those people had insurance when the crisis started.

 

[MarcATL]

There are ideas and elements of socialism that can happily coexist with our capitalism and make things better for everybody.

Yep. I would think that a reasonable person would understand that this all lies along a continuum, that you're not either "socialist" or "not socialist". But it sure does seem like there are a lot of people who can't seem to grasp that.
.

Well if you honestly believe that, it's time to bring forth that element of socialism that you believe benefits everyone.

Because I got news for you, it probably only benefits you and in place of "everybody" you have substituted yourself.

Don't try to tell other people what benefits them. That's incredibly condescending. I would never claim that capitalism benefits everyone, it doesn't. It does make 99.9% of the country a lot richer quick though. That's just an empirical observation.

Your statement is neither empirical, nor is it an accurate observation, or an observation at all for that matter.

You rightwingers are so damn melodramatic that it's comical.

#LOLGOP #TooFunny

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk

 

[dblack]

Nope. I think, when working as advertised, it's the majority of the people forcing their will on the rest of us. That's assuming it hasn't been co-opted by lobbyists and interest groups.

Majority rule is just fine. thanks.

Not for everything. Would you like to use majority rule for determine who you'll marry? Should we vote on which religion we adopt?

How about what your job is? Who your doctor will be? What you're having for dinner? Who your friends are?

Majority rule is fine when we need conformity. When it's vital that everyone abide by the same decision, then we should vote on it and accept the results. Otherwise, we should leave government out of it and let people decide for themselves how to live their lives.

 

[JoeB131]

Not for everything. Would you like to use majority rule for determine who you'll marry? Should we vote on which religion we adopt?

How about what your job is? Who your doctor will be? What you're having for dinner? Who your friends are?

Nobody is really suggesting that, but thanks for clinging for an extreme example to make a point.

Majority rule is fine when we need conformity. When it's vital that everyone abide by the same decision, then we should vote on it and accept the results. Otherwise, we should leave government out of it and let people decide for themselves how to live their lives.

Okay. We need conformity in health care. Everyone should have the same access to doctors and medical treatment. That seems pretty reasonable to most people.

 

[dblack]

Okay. We need conformity in health care. Everyone should have the same access to doctors and medical treatment. That seems pretty reasonable to most people.

It's not up to "most people". The powers and responsibilities of government are assigned via the Constitution. If we want to add healthcare, we have to amend the Constitution. That process requires much more than a simple majority vote, and for good reason.

 

[JoeB131]

It's not up to "most people". The powers and responsibilities of government are assigned via the Constitution. If we want to add healthcare, we have to amend the Constitution. That process requires much more than a simple majority vote, and for good reason.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

we don't need to amend the constitution to have universal health care. All we need to do is vote it in, or expand Medicare to cover everyone. Easy Peasy.

 

[kaz]

Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.

As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.

How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.

Democrats are socialists whether that scares people or not

 

[kaz]

It's not up to "most people". The powers and responsibilities of government are assigned via the Constitution. If we want to add healthcare, we have to amend the Constitution. That process requires much more than a simple majority vote, and for good reason.

The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

we don't need to amend the constitution to have universal health care. All we need to do is vote it in, or expand Medicare to cover everyone. Easy Peasy.

Not giving people free healthcare is a suicide pact ...

 

[kaz]

Venezuela crisis: How did we get here?
Thread over...

Is Venezuela the only example of socialism? Can you think of any others?
.

North Korea and Cuba

 

[JoeB131]

Not giving people free healthcare is a suicide pact ...

It is for people who can't get access to health care, or get denied treatment after they'v paid their premiums.

You know, like we have the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world.

 

[kaz]

Not giving people free healthcare is a suicide pact ...

It is for people who can't get access to health care, or get denied treatment after they'v paid their premiums.

You know, like we have the highest infant mortality rate and the lowest life expectancy in the industrialized world.

If an insurance company denies your claim for services that are covered under a policy that you bought and paid for then you can file a civil suit. But we both know that didn't happen, don't we? You bought the cheapest crap policy then wanted money for something you didn't pay for for free.

And your claims are lies. The life expectancy just isn't true. With the infant mortality rate is a lie because the US counts mortality different than most countries which don't count a lot of the deaths we do as infant mortality. More fake news from the liar

 

[JoeB131]

If an insurance company denies your claim for services that are covered under a policy that you bought and paid for then you can file a civil suit. But we both know that didn't happen, don't we? You bought the cheapest crap policy then wanted money for something you didn't pay for for free.

Um, no, actually what I did was opt for the best insurance that my company at that time offered, and I had to fight tooth and nail with them to get treatment my doctor said I needed. And when there recession hit in 2008 and permanently cured me of Libertarian/Republican nonsense, all us folks with medical issues were the first to get the axe, for some reason.

But you'll claim I was stealing paper clips, because you fired a guy once for that.

And your claims are lies. The life expectancy just isn't true. With the infant mortality rate is a lie because the US counts mortality different than most countries which don't count a lot of the deaths we do as infant mortality. More fake news from the liar

These assessment come from the CIA... not "fake news". but you do go on.

Our system of health care sucks. Everyone else in the world has figured this out.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Our conservative posters continue to start thread after thread pertaining to "socialism". And even though their exact definitions are fairly unclear, it's obvious they think that screaming SOCIALISM is, by itself, enough to win a debate.

As most of us can see, more and more people are becoming perfectly comfortable with the word - in part, no doubt, because the Right has completely over-used and diluted it.

How long before the Right realizes the term "socialism" no longer scares people?
.

/——/ You need one more option: I reject your premise because nothing has changed.

 

[MarcATL]

JoeB131, why does it take something to happen to them/their families to understand that their Republican ideas are wrong?

Sent from my SM-N950U using Tapatalk