Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[Procrustes Stretched]

If socialism, (whatever that is) is done at a the local level is it still socialism or does the program have to be at the federal level for it to be labeled socialism?

The ignorant continue to not know the difference of Socialism vs. Socialist Ideals.

So tell us what socialism is.

China has an economic system based on capitalist ideals. would you call China a capitalist country?

yes or no would do

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ravi

Lots of volunteer fire departments, and I honor every single person who participates, but public fire departments are much more effective. That's why most small towns scramble at the first opportunity to set one up. How effective do you think a volunteer fire department would have been on 9/11?

There are also private fire departments, and they are about 1/3 the price of government run fire departments. When you pay people to retire at 42 on a 100% pension, it gets real expensive.

Who pays for them?

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

 

[bripat9643]

Many fire departments, particularly in the northeast where I am originally from, are volunteer forces. As for Social Security, yes, I do oppose it because it is heading towards insolvency due to Baby Boomer greed and I will never be able to withdraw a dime that I have put into it.

Lots of volunteer fire departments, and I honor every single person who participates, but public fire departments are much more effective. That's why most small towns scramble at the first opportunity to set one up. How effective do you think a volunteer fire department would have been on 9/11?

There are also private fire departments, and they are about 1/3 the price of government run fire departments. When you pay people to retire at 42 on a 100% pension, it gets real expensive.

Who pays for them?

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Who do you think pays the taxes for our police, fire departments, and road maintenance??? IT goes through the government and they dole it out to certain people that get it done.

I am very thankful some of these things are regulated and we elect the government to over see that it gets done.

We already know how government pays for their exorbitantly expensive fire departments. The point you are so desperately trying to evade is that the same thing can be accomplished by private companies at 1/3 of the cost. It's unfortunately for intelligent people who can solve their problems without government that they have to be governed by morons like you.

 

[Londoner]

The OP is confused about the difference between Marx, who didn't believe in a system built around private property, and Keynes, who most certainly did. This kind of confusion is common among those with limited post high school education, leaving them victim to things like talk radio and popular media.

Democrats side with Keynes in their belief that markets generally get incentives right, and they do a better job (than government) at calibrating supply and demand. However, they believe that markets are fallible, and subject to corruption and terrible crashes. For this reasons a Keynesian believe in regulations along with government stimulus during downturns (which actually includes tax breaks). Keynesians also favor infrastructure projects so that capital investment has the advantage of modern transportation, energy grids , water works, disaster relief, and technology, e.g., the satellite system or the technology that came out of the Cold War Pentagon/NASA, for instance.

Most Republican presidents have been Keynesians, though the post Ford Republicans (Reagan/Bush 41/43 ) didn't admit it. Reagan added more government jobs than any president thereafter, mostly in defense; and he also funded massive defense sector technology which has had profound commercial applications. He saved Social Security. Bush 43 used his ownership society to stimulate a housing boom, which had an immense economic multiplier effect. He also made the largest expansion of the entitlement system since LBJ with his Medicare D. These are just a few examples.

You might research how the government defense jobs Reagan added in Southern California stimulated the economies of that region. Each government job represented another consumer on Main Street. Reagan may have been rhetorically against big government, but he was a brilliant military Keynesian.

But here is the point. A socialist does not support markets at all whereas a Keynesian believes that government can partner with markets - and nobody proved this better than Eisenhower, Nixon and Reagan.

You might say that Keynesians are closer to Socialists than Libertarians, but to confuse Marx with Keynes makes you sound like an idiot. There are huge conceptual differences.

(This is why Trump is leading in the polls with Republicans. The Republican Party needed the under-educated low-information voter to create an electoral coalition strong enough to topple FDRs New Deal coalition - and now we are lying in that bed)

 

[bripat9643]

Ravi

There are also private fire departments, and they are about 1/3 the price of government run fire departments. When you pay people to retire at 42 on a 100% pension, it gets real expensive.

Who pays for them?

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Yeah, the got away with their scandalous lending practices by giving mortgages with below market interest rates to sleazy bags like Chistopher Dodd.

What does that have to do with private fire departments?

 

[ScienceRocks]

Capitalism needs to be regulated by the GOVERNMENT. Pure unregulated capitalism always shows the greed of our species.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Brooksley Born Still Telling the Uncomfortable Truths About Wall Street

The Warning Brooksley Born s Battle With Alan Greenspan Robert Rubin And Larry Summers - Business Insider

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Many of us know human nature. We also know economic models leave out the human factor. The very idea that industries would self-regulate with the interests of the nation at heart is -- bonkers

 

[bripat9643]

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ravi

Who pays for them?

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Yeah, the got away with their scandalous lending practices by giving mortgages with below market interest rates to sleazy bags like Chistopher Dodd.

What does that have to do with private fire departments?

we can't have fire resistant buildings without government, because mortgage companies and insurance companies look to the bottom dollar and they could get away with making more money while letting Rome burn, they would.

They exist to make money, not make buildings safer. If a cost benefit analysis showed weakening regulations would increase profit -- there goes your ill-informed reasoning

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Matthew

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

It proves you have no clue what you are responding to. Matthew is arguing pro socialistic public sector

 

[regent]

Huh?
The Constitution mandates Socialism?

Socialism is controlling the means of production...government interferring in the activity of private business.....providing a fire service or military protection is not socialism, and is already defined in our Constitution.

"Common Defense"...could there be a better definition of Socialism than that?

Not socialism....

Ya think?
They could be contracted out...you know...Free Market.
You said so yourself.
That means they are 'controlling the means of production' when the work could be done privately...isn't that Socialism?
Therefore The Constitution is clearly a Socialist manifesto.

Sorry, the Constitution puts strict limits on the powers of the federal government and how it interferes in an economy, so no, it isn't a socialist document. The federal government has no control over the means of production or the distribution of goods and services.

Of course it does.
There are many products the government does not allow to be distributed and the same with services.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Socialism is controlling the means of production...government interferring in the activity of private business.....providing a fire service or military protection is not socialism, and is already defined in our Constitution.

"Common Defense"...could there be a better definition of Socialism than that?

Not socialism....

Ya think?
They could be contracted out...you know...Free Market.
You said so yourself.
That means they are 'controlling the means of production' when the work could be done privately...isn't that Socialism?
Therefore The Constitution is clearly a Socialist manifesto.

Sorry, the Constitution puts strict limits on the powers of the federal government and how it interferes in an economy, so no, it isn't a socialist document. The federal government has no control over the means of production or the distribution of goods and services.

Of course it does.
There are many products the government does not allow to be distributed and the same with services.

are you two aware of the Commerce Clause?

 

[bripat9643]

Ravi

Private fire departments? Homeowners pay for them through their mortgages. Maintaining fire protection is part of their mortgage agreement, just like maintaining homeowner's insurance is.

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Yeah, the got away with their scandalous lending practices by giving mortgages with below market interest rates to sleazy bags like Chistopher Dodd.

What does that have to do with private fire departments?

we can't have fire resistant buildings without government, because mortgage companies and insurance companies look to the bottom dollar and they could get away with making more money while letting Rome burn, they would.

They exist to make money, not make buildings safer. If a cost benefit analysis showed weakening regulations would increase profit -- there goes your ill-informed reasoning

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

 

[bripat9643]

Matthew

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

It proves you have no clue what you are responding to. Matthew is arguing pro socialistic public sector

I understand that, nimrod. His claim that all states have a public sector doesn't prove squat except that states like to expropriate the incomes of their citizens and dole out benefits to favored constituencies.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ravi

Ok, I've no idea if that is true. What I do know is that strict fire codes have reduced fires overall. Is that socialism, and if so,is it bad?

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Yeah, the got away with their scandalous lending practices by giving mortgages with below market interest rates to sleazy bags like Chistopher Dodd.

What does that have to do with private fire departments?

we can't have fire resistant buildings without government, because mortgage companies and insurance companies look to the bottom dollar and they could get away with making more money while letting Rome burn, they would.

They exist to make money, not make buildings safer. If a cost benefit analysis showed weakening regulations would increase profit -- there goes your ill-informed reasoning

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

The lawsuits from the families?

There was this case of the Tobacco Industry lying about...

never mind. I refuse to batter my head against the wall

this time


with you

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Matthew

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

It proves you have no clue what you are responding to. Matthew is arguing pro socialistic public sector

I understand that, nimrod. His claim that all states have a public sector doesn't prove squat except that states like to expropriate the incomes of their citizens and dole out benefits to favored constituencies.

Governments have been collecting taxes for all of recorded history

What is your point?

 

[bripat9643]

Ravi

Yeah, we can't have fire resistant buildings without government because mortgage companies and insurance companies like buildings that ignite and burn like a Ronson lighter.

Socialism is based on the theory that people are too stupid to run their own lives, but their competent to give government dictatorial control over the lives.

were you paying attention when the media exposed Countrywide and others?

"If you had a pulse, we gave you a loan."

If you had a pulse we gave you a loan - Dateline NBC - The Hansen Files with Chris Hansen NBC News

Yeah, the got away with their scandalous lending practices by giving mortgages with below market interest rates to sleazy bags like Chistopher Dodd.

What does that have to do with private fire departments?

we can't have fire resistant buildings without government, because mortgage companies and insurance companies look to the bottom dollar and they could get away with making more money while letting Rome burn, they would.

They exist to make money, not make buildings safer. If a cost benefit analysis showed weakening regulations would increase profit -- there goes your ill-informed reasoning

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

The lawsuits from the families?

There was this case of the Tobacco Industry lying about...

never mind. I refuse to batter my head against the wall

this time


with you

In other words, you know when you ass has been thoroughly kicked.

The tobacco industry isn't a good example since everyone who smoked knew that cigarettes were bad for them. That's like suing a gun manufacturer because your wife took your gun, put the barrel in her mouth and pulled the trigger.

Corporations are responsible for your stupidity, although I know you would like to make them responsible.

 

[The Rabbi]

Socialism is controlling the means of production...government interferring in the activity of private business.....providing a fire service or military protection is not socialism, and is already defined in our Constitution.

"Common Defense"...could there be a better definition of Socialism than that?

Not socialism....

Ya think?
They could be contracted out...you know...Free Market.
You said so yourself.
That means they are 'controlling the means of production' when the work could be done privately...isn't that Socialism?
Therefore The Constitution is clearly a Socialist manifesto.

Sorry, the Constitution puts strict limits on the powers of the federal government and how it interferes in an economy, so no, it isn't a socialist document. The federal government has no control over the means of production or the distribution of goods and services.

Of course it does.
There are many products the government does not allow to be distributed and the same with services.

That is utter bullshit.
It is like saying that because we had a draft in WW2 we never abolished slavery.

 

[bripat9643]

Matthew

Name a civilization that isn't a third world hell hole that doesn't have a public sector?

All the third world hell holes have a public sector. I guess that means having one causes a country to be a hell hole.

BTW, all dogs have fleas. What does that prove?

It proves you have no clue what you are responding to. Matthew is arguing pro socialistic public sector

I understand that, nimrod. His claim that all states have a public sector doesn't prove squat except that states like to expropriate the incomes of their citizens and dole out benefits to favored constituencies.

Governments have been collecting taxes for all of recorded history

What is your point?

Yeah, and dogs have had fleas since the beginning of dogs. Does that mean dogs benefit from being infested by fleas?

 

[OnePercenter]

That is pure and utter horseshit. When I worked construction, it wasn't government inspectors who showed up on the job site to make sure the fireproofing was installed correctly. It was agents from the Insurance company. The idea that a cost benefit analysis shows building less fire safe buildings increases profit ignores the fact of the huge losses the company would suffer if their building caught on fire. The lawsuits from the families of the killed and injured alone would probably be sufficient to put the company out of business.

You obviously don't know jack shit about risk analysis. Your claim is based on total ignorance of business and economics.

You're a typical ignorant blowhard liberal/socialist.

Maybe in Canada, but in the US building inspectors (government) shows up to sign off.