Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

Another typical dodge: Implying that if government doesn't provide something, nobody will provide it. The only choices we have (according to the socialists) is government running a program, or the program being "done away with, outright and altogether".

These govt-uber-alles addicts are very entertaining sometimes.

Lots of talk from you without substance.

If you have a point, please make it.
 
...as the weight moves further from the fulcrum, more weight must be applied to the other side to keep lever level.
 
uh huh...and how many ppl lose their money to the stock market trying to manage their own portfolio?
 
Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Cops and roads are Socialist ideals, in that putting money into one pot for the benefit of all.
 
Who says they aren't....but those services belong at the local level....strictly controlled by the people in that town....Why send money to Washington in taxes, to have them take their percent of it and then give back what they think we need.....why not just keep that tax money in the town or state, and not send it to Washington....every lefty I talk to can't explain that....

Doesn't Washington send most if not all/more back to the States?

You can keep all the money in town, but what happens when there's a catastrophic event? Does the town go bankrupt?


No. They can get help from the state or other local states...that keeps any money local and more controllable, and any corruption is easier to deal with.

No, they receive federal relief funds.
 
When will you admit that some socialist polices are the main stay of civilization??? We wouldn't have civilization without them.
I don't admit it because it's simply not true. There is nothing that government does that the private sector can't do better and cheaper.
How about the military?


Stated in the Constitution already. That is a federal matter...Common Defense.


And private military contractors are better than almost all military units. They can hire the best, and do the job more efficiently.

You DON'T want to bring up Halliburton.
 
. So let each have their own.

liberalism is based on bigotry and violence toward others. If you don't want to pay for crippling welfare they define you as morally inferior and send men with guns to make you pay.

Dear EdwardBaiamonte
The politics of media and majority rule unfortunately
keeps rewarding people for taking sides and practicing bigotry against opposing views.
That's not limited to just liberals, but conservatives as well.

Do you agree that liberals also see conservatives as bigoted
as the conservatives who can SEE the liberal bias will point out the bigotry imposed constantly
by the very liberals claiming to oppose bigotry.
 
it's comical to me; they get so butthurt when you call them socialists, and start crying that you don't know what Socialism is; but they wont just come out and say they are Socialists, own it

You've been invited to tell us what you think is Socialism.

Name the socialist programs currently in place in the US.
Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, all Welfare programs, Obamacare, just about everything government does, really
Obamacare uses private insurance companies. Single payer would be Socialized Medicine.
Oamacare isn't as socialized as single payer, but the government is interfering massively in the insurance industry. It's virtually turning private insurance companies into government agencies.
 
When will you admit that some socialist polices are the main stay of civilization??? We wouldn't have civilization without them.

And now you're going to explain that assertion, right?

Everything that is accomplished by government run entities, with government employees, is socialism.

You also have entities like credit unions and co-ops that fall under a broader definition of socialism.

Credit unions and co-ops are actually part of the private market, so they aren't socialist. Socialism involves the use of government compulsion. without it, you don't have socialism.
 
The Republicans have the Tea Party and the Democrats have the social democrats, and most of us are somewhere in between the two.

The question to me is whether the conservatives will either figure out or admit that the goal is Sweden & Germany, not Cuba & Venezuela.

The conservatives are fighting something that doesn't exist right now, and it's helping the social democrats big time.

.
The Democrats promise Sweden and deliver Venezuela.
That would actually be the argument to make. But the problem with just screaming "socialism" is that it makes it easy for the social democrats to point out existing "socialist" stuff like cops, roads, social security, Medicare, etc., and suddenly the conservatives have to either (1) defend the absurd or (2) call for the end of social security and Medicare, which is just a freakin' brilliant idea.

Just sayin' - while conservatives are screaming "socialism", the liberals are easily poking holes in that argument and then making gains with their own arguments. They need a more nuanced approach.

.

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.
Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

These social programs can be separated by Party,
so that members can quit fighting over prochoice/prolife policies
and fund the policies they AGREE to sign up for by their Party's democratically passed platforms.
If they don't agree they can split off and form separate parties where all members agree to
fund the same programs under the same terms of membership.
this would solve the issue of marriage benefits that are splitting the parties by beliefs.
Let each fund their own beliefs, similar to churches.
So the same way Christianity is one collective system but has different denominations
each funding their own terms, conditions, facilities and programs for their members by VOLUNTARY
compliance participation and funding, the Social Programs for the public can be organized by party.

If we have private schools with their own administrative policies and separate funding,
why not have prison rehab and recovery/restitution programs that people can fund separately,
or choose to pay for HEALTH CARE instead of paying for inmate care if people don't agree with
that and expect all citizens, even ones in prisons, to work to pay for their living expenses instead of charging the public.

We could solve a lot more problems by agreeing to separation options for people
to pay for the health care, social programs, and restorative justice programs they WANT to fund
instead of wasting billions of dollars on campaigns fighting each other's policies
and then wasting billions of dollars more when problems with prisons, health care, schools, etc. aren't fixed
because all the money is spent fighting between opposing parties for dominance in govt
instead of fixing the actual problems directly with those same resources.
 
When will you admit that some socialist polices are the main stay of civilization??? We wouldn't have civilization without them.

dear, we and China have mixed economies with elements of socialism and capitalism. The more capitalism the better the economy performs. When China just switched toward capitalism they instantly eliminated 40% of the entire world' poverty.

Do you understand?

Why do non-profit credit unions perform better than for-profit banks?

One: they aren't subject to the regulations that banks are subject to.
 
Oamacare isn't as socialized as single payer, but the government is interfering massively in the insurance industry. It's virtually turning private insurance companies into government agencies.

The Reagan administration interfered in medical insurance in the 80's by deregulating the HMO act, which removed competition, and is the reason why medicine in this country is so expensive.

And no stupid Canadian, ACA ISN'T 'virtually turning private insurance companies into government agencies.'
 
Credit unions and co-ops are actually part of the private market, so they aren't socialist. Socialism involves the use of government compulsion. without it, you don't have socialism.

WTF are you spouting. Unions, co-ops, HMO's are all socialist ideals.
 
I think Bernie Sanders admitted for the Democrats that they are socialists. Big surprise after they spied for Stalin and gave him the bomb. Oops!
 
When will you admit that some socialist polices are the main stay of civilization??? We wouldn't have civilization without them.

And now you're going to explain that assertion, right?

Everything that is accomplished by government run entities, with government employees, is socialism.

You also have entities like credit unions and co-ops that fall under a broader definition of socialism.

Credit unions and co-ops are actually part of the private market, so they aren't socialist. Socialism involves the use of government compulsion. without it, you don't have socialism.

Only if we use the narrow definition of credit unions by you the crackpot.
 

Forum List

Back
Top