CPAC Socialism Fearmongering and the Internet's Rebuttals
Recently, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservatives had a common theme of railing against Socialism due to some of the progressives that have announced their candidacy for the presidency.
Some of the internet comments made when this fearmongering was discovered were just beautiful. Here are some of my favorites...In 2020, when Bozo Trump is long gone perhaps sitting in a dark damp cell with many of his Communist Russian Republican Comrades in Congress, Americans will have a potentially life changing choice and that choice will be Communist Russian Republican Socialism which gives ALL our money to the filthy rich "Elite Few", or Democratic Socialism which gives ALL Americans Health-CARE and a Higher Minimum Wage:
Aside from the last remaining lost Trump followers, I think just like this last midterm election where Progressive Democrats DESTROYED Republicans, the choice will be clear and it's nothing less than disgusting that this kind of choice must be made:"I think just like this last midterm election where Progressive Democrats DESTROYED Republicans, the choice will be clear and it's nothing less than disgusting that this kind of choice must be made:"
Yep. The choice will be crystal clear with the litany of wacko leftists running for Democratic nomination. If Joe Biden runs, the Democrats might pull it off.Jake, dont paint everything black and white. It’s this left right, black white thinking and talking that promotes extremism.
What you say about Russia.simply is not true. Russia is not a comunist state. It is an capitalist state run by businessmen and that’s why Trump and Putin get allong so well.
Even China is not a comunist state anymore but just a different form of capitalism.
The whole fearmongering and fingerpointing towards comunism is old fashioned spindoctering that’s long out of date.
Today comunism does not exist anymore, we live in a global capitalist market. There are just different forms of capitalism.Black white fear mongering is the only weapon in Jake's arsenal.
What amazes me is that stupid Democrats would actually use the word "socialism". It's a guarantee of failure. It's already being used by Republicans to bludgeon Democrats and will be successful. Trump is currently operating with a very strong economy. While I think his policies will ultimately turn the economy the wrong way, as long as he has low unemployment, people will have to seriously consider that. It's a hard thing to beat and Democrats shouldn't take it so lightly. Offering up more expensive social programs and not providing a way to pay for them is going to result in failure.
Republicans have a point. Is the only way to get elected to offer people free things? That's all politics is now? All we seem to be arguing over is where we redistribute wealthy. The Dems want it redistributed to the poor and middle class. The Repubs want it redistributed to the wealthy (allowing them to cheat the system, pay zero taxes; etc.). Meanwhile, all us lemmings just blindly follow one way or the other and argue among ourselves over meaningless little points.Promising free stuff is a tried and true method of getting elected; it has worked quite well for several decades now and is not likely to go away any time in the near future.
But I do have to wonder about just how wealth is "redistributed" to the rich; allowing them to keep a little more of what they own is hardly "redistributing" anything. Unless, of course, one is operating under the assumption that what they have earned and built actually belongs to the government.
Even the little slap about paying zero taxes is far from the truth; government purchases a product/service from the wealthy and, in lieu of payment, reduces their taxes. That's hardly redistribution, either, any more than known tax cheats are routinely allowed to happen without punishment.In a nutshell, being wealthy often involves paying less taxes than people with much less wealth and using the government for massive benefit. We shouldn’t milk the rich, but if they can use the system to dramatically increase their wealth, they should have to pay for it.
That said, I am in favor of a flat tax with other taxes weighted toward luxury goods and away from essentials."In a nutshell, being wealthy often involves paying less taxes than people with much less wealth and using the government for massive benefit."
Well now, that statement is just plain false - untrue - and both you and I know that. Unless you are paying in percentage signs rather than dollar bills?
"We shouldn’t milk the rich"
And yet that's exactly what we do, and what you propose to increase.
I would love to see a flat tax...if we could live off of one. We can't, so we will "milk the rich", and do so to a greater extent every time we can get away with it.Do you pay your electric bill with percentage signs? Buy a loaf of bread with them?
No? Then what makes buying the needs of the country different...except that we all want something for nothing. We all want somebody else to foot the bill and think that if we make it sound like something it most definitely is NOT that it becomes OK?Oh, c'mon. We've always had progressive tax rates, the expectation being that those who make more money pay at a higher rate. However, with all the loopholes in the tax code, wealthy people and corporations are often able to get out of paying any tax at all. I've seen firsthand how being wealthy gets you lower mortgage rates, better loans; etc. So the wealthy benefit greatly and paying at a higher rate is a reasonable expectation.
That said, I'm leaning more toward a flat tax on income and on good, with some progressive increases built into the system. So there's be no tax on food, but those taxes would increase on less utilitarian goods. Yachts would have a higher tax rate than say, a car. A 10,000 square foot house would have a higher tax rate than a 2,000 square foot house. A Rolls Royce would have a higher tax rate than a Ford. (this assuming the price in each of my examples is much more - I get that in some regions, a 10,000 square foot house costs less than a 2,000 square foot house in another region).
In other words, tax conspicuous consumption.
Now, the downside to that idea, it might hurt consumption and hurt businesses that make luxury goods and reduce overall spending and production. But given the country's overall personal debt and government debt, perhaps a little spending control is not a bad thing.Hi Crankalicious, your comment about higher tax rates on "luxury" items rang a bell about the tactic being previously tried - and it failed.
You are right, such a tax would hurt consumption and businesses, but I don't understand your point about reduced personal spending. You are talking about rich folks. I would think you would want them spending more in the economy.
Anyway, here is an old Washington Post article about the 1991 Luxury tax. It lasted only two years, (projections were based on a minimum of 5 years), It was projected to generate $1.8 billion, (1991 dollars) per year, but ended up only generating about $13 million the first year.
And it devasted several job-producing luxury item industries.
Have a read:
HOW TO SINK AN INDUSTRY AND NOT SOAK THE RICH
GAGood article. I wasn't thinking of soaking the rich, so much as creating a progressive system where taxes on such goods are higher than taxes on, say, food. That tax applied in this article seemed excessive.
Also, I would think it would appeal to conservatives who complain about people on welfare having cell phones and other gadgets.
Also, I don't think they tried the luxury tax for long enough. People are always resistant to change at first, but then they get used to it. But I'm certainly not trying to ruin businesses. That's backwards economics.
Of course, once politics got in this, you'd have endless debates about what goods go in what brackets.
I suppose we're all just screwed.I understand it was just a thought. I have those occasionally too. Unfortunately, in my case, it usually turns I should have just let them go.
For instance, I don't think there is any tax on food now, and cell phones are already subject to sales tax in most states, (except the one per household that can be gotten for free). Surely you wouldn't advocate a different tax on a similar product just because the purchaser can more easily afford it?
I think what appeals most to conservatives is not forcing someone to pay for something, (not deemed a life necessity), for someone else.
I don't think we are "just screwed," I think the first solution should be to address spending, not just demand more because we want more.
Valeant posted a thread a while back that linked to a video I think would address the topic we are discussing, as well as many more.
Take a look Unbreaking America's Election
GAWhat free childcare and free education can do for a community.
And Rosen commented that, "...there are a lot of wealthy people with the resources to do the same thing if they choose."
This is the kind of thing needed in many places in America.So instead of part of a wall, we could do this in 500 communities instead. Lets put it in equivalent terms.
From GA's earlier post: "I think what appeals most to conservatives is not forcing someone to pay for something, (not deemed a life necessity), for someone else."
Do you find this to be wrong, not only for conservatives but for everyone? If not, who will you get to donate 11 million dollars to every 3,000 person community?Do I find it wrong to incentivize young people to get an education? Do I find it wrong to give incentive to cut the crime rate in half?
So by your logic, you deem the wall to be a life necessity. So you're willing to support a section of the vanity wall for Trump but not education and childcare for 500 communities that increases the graduation rate to 100% and cuts the crime rate in half. Because those two things would be the same price.
I am for a government that uses it's tax revenues to invest in families and improving the educational level of its citizenry instead of building a wall that technology can easily defeat.
I actually agree with GA that government spending is out of control. I would actually prefer it if we balanced a budget before expanding any programs. But if I had to choose between a wall and using the funds to mirror what Rosen did in his community, I'd choose Rosen's idea every time."Do I find it wrong to incentivize young people to get an education? Do I find it wrong to give incentive to cut the crime rate in half?"
Somehow the other side of the coin is always, always ignored as if it doesn't exist. But it DOES exist, and it is that whatever resources you use to "incentivize" children to get more education than they need for a good paying job must be taken, by force, from someone else.
Now, you may find that right and moral - to play Robin Hood by taking from one to give to another - but for the life of me I cannot find anything moral about it. When you are ready to accept that anyone that wants what you have, to use for whatever purposes they find good, then you might (might!) be able to claim the moral high ground, but until then all you have to offer is "might makes right".
If you would choose Rosen's idea every time then isn't it time you personally stepped up, sold your house and car and put your money where your mouth is? Rosen's idea, after all, was to take what belonged to him and use it for what he saw as a good thing for others; your proposal here is to take what belongs to someone else and use it for what you find to be a good thing for a third person. They are not the same, no matter how hard to try to make them so.So what you are saying is that taxes are taken by force? That you don't believe you should have to pay taxes? Or just that taxes shouldn't be used to educate the population or aim to be used in ways that are proven to reduce crime, like they are in this instance? That using taxes on a wall is not robbery, but investing in individuals is robbery? That taxes used to bailout farmers is not robbery when the government policies caused my hard earned tax dollars to be used on something I didn't want them used on?
We can agree to disagree that an educated population and a lower crime rate is worth the investment that tax revenues can provide."So what you are saying is that taxes are taken by force?"
Fail to pay them and you will find out if force will be used to taken them anyway. I don't recommend it, but you WILL find out.
"Or just that taxes shouldn't be used to educate the population "
As the "population" includes every person in the country, your statement is patently false. And, of course, it ignores the simple fact that we already have plenty of college grads - more than we need - that paid their OWN way rather than taking charity. What you actually want is that a few privileged people will get that education paid for by someone you feel has built more than they should have rather than by themselves.
The wall, whether you agree with it or not, is to protect every person in the nation. A far different cry than what you want. If you don't agree with what taxes are spent on, become a legislator yourself...but if you choose that route please stay out of MY pocketbook when you go looking for money to give away for no return.
We can agree that our population is ALREADY educated up through the 12 grade. And that more can be, and is, paid for by those that want it. We can also agree that spending an additional 11 Million dollars to reduce the crime somewhat in a community of just 3,000 people is grossly out of line. Cheaper to simply jail all of them - the return was not worth the investment.So you concede that taxes can pay for education, but only up through 12th grade. Those extra four years becomes socialism. That's pretty funny.
'We can also agree that spending an additional 11 Million dollars to reduce the crime somewhat in a community of just 3,000 people is grossly out of line. Cheaper to simply jail all of them - the return was not worth the investment.'
That comment was right up there with the one you made that we should just collapse the tunnels with people inside as a deterrent. Do you even understand what a horrible human being you are?I am trying to get the Rightwinger and their designs on the treasury out of MY wallet. I don't buy into this "benefit everybody" as you interpret justification for putting everyone in jail, building walls or a profligate military establishment. I guess it will come down to our votes as what is the appropriate use of our tax dollars. And I know in which direction I will continue to pull, right wing angst not withstanding.
Cred, you may disagree with what you think "Right-wingers" want to spend your tax dollars on, but come on bud, do you really think it is the "Right-wingers" you have to worry about getting into your wallet? ;-)
GAHow do you mean, GA? I am just taking the example of 'giving away' money as explained from Wilderness' point of view and applying the flip side demonstrating the strong polar opposites of our points of view.
Both sides are guilty of "waste" in their own way. It is just annoying that Republicans like to refer to themselves as the fiscally responsible ones. They are anything but, they simply waste money in areas that are far less palatable from my point of view.I wasn't addressing Wilderness' reply Cred. I understand the point I think he intended, but I don't agree with his point as it appeared.
I was only replying to your thought about who was trying to get into your wallet. I contend that it is the liberal Democrats that are more of a threat than the Republicans.
As for your "Republicans" thought, you get no argument from me. I think they are as bad as the Democrats. Ying and yang, still the same coin. A "slug" coin by my standards.
GA
"...there are a lot of wealthy people with the resources to do the same thing if they choose."
So he's saying that there are a lot of wealthy people who could, if willing, do what he did. THAT is a good idea. Instead of stealing from them, encourage them to do what this man did.
This one from 'Stuart'
Republicans have just informed me that I was raised in a Socialist United States from 1945 to the Reagan years circa 1989. Admittedly it became less "socialist" as the radical right passed more and more legislation to shift our more shared wealth to fewer and fewer people until only the mostly very wealthy had most of the wealth as we see today and there are fewer and fewer benefits to be a worker in today's United States. So, so long when the US had good roads and bridges, inexpensive universities, workers getting paid a living wage, no gated communities secluding wealthy segments of the population away from the rest of us, a military cut from a greater swath of our population, etc., etc.,
Sure, there were problems but we had a can do attitude to fix them not paper them over as we see today. We had a living wage...or at least more living than today. A minimum wage back then would be $22 an hour now if balanced for inflation. We had a government that worked not one run by the rich. Money wasn't everything back then as it seems now. We had communities not just houses and apartments stuck together housing workers scrambling to just keep "heads above water." It wasn't like Nirvana but it had substance...it had people working together with real lives outside of work making better rounded lives...not scattered workers going from dawn to dusk, dusk to dawn scratching a living...in our old Socialist America that was more Socialist than what the Democrats are talking about now. Now we are back to the 1880 Robber Baron days of greed, wealth controlling everything, Yes, folks, there were many fine things in the "Good Old "Socialist" Days of America, better even than the greedy old/new days of Rapacious Capitalism the US has been steered into today. Oh, when will we ever learn?Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist. When pressed about the famine, starvation, suffering, misery, and death that Socialism wrought in the 20th Century, which was vastly worse than anything that ever before befell mankind in human history, Bernie says he is different because he is a “Democratic Socialist.” I can appreciate the New Socialists adding the word “Democratic” to their name to distance themselves from the Socialists who murdered 100 million people. But I have been studying the Manifesto of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is what the Democratic Socialists say they want:
"A world free from capitalism" "We reject private profit" "Eradicate the sources of inequality" "Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity" "Equalize wealth and income" "State ownership of what is now Private Property" "State ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations" "State ownership [Communism] and/or direct control [Fascism] of the economic resources of society" "State control over all private resources, including all land, insurance, credit, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, and all existing financial institutions" "Global government across national boundaries to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are the same worldwide" "Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor" "Eliminate Religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--the belief in an invisible being in the sky."
NOW, you tell me how this is different from what Socialists and Communists have always wanted?
From 'John'
Neither the left or the right seems to know the difference between group insurance and socialism. FDR wasn't a socialist. Sometimes it takes a bit of socialism to save capitalism.From 'Elmo'
I suppose it's better than giving our money to corporations, who thank us by moving off-shore and destroying our cities, while claiming American citizenship and dodging all taxes...THAT'S corporate socialism, and it's ruined both equality and freedom in America, made millions dependent on government programs while denying them a decent education, increasing income inequality as it saps the resources from the commons and leaves us with the toxic mess; further impoverishing families with the medical bills from things like cancer, while our young people fight their wars for them, dying in places like Afghanistan and Syria. We couldn't do much worse.From 'Netminderx'
The only thing that will stop the spread of socialism is giving a better deal for the working man. That is something the Republican party is unwilling to do. They are dedicated to redistributing wealth upwards. Currently we have a high in the concentration of wealth at the top. Real wages have not increased in 20 years. That is what needs to be addressed. The Republicans continue to try to get more money to the rich.Under President Trump real wages for the working man have risen for the first time in decades. Wages or standard of living never rises under socialism. It makes everyone equally poor.
Valeant is wrong; as long as the plebs can vote themselves "bread and circuses" at someone else's expense socialism will spread. Until, of course, it fails completely and the US becomes just another third world nation.
A better deal for the working man won't help, not when the same standard can be achieved by not working at all. This is something the liberals of the country cannot seem to grasp; when people are actively encouraged to remain at the lowest levels of productivity, while ensuring a good standard of living, they will do exactly that.
How rich the rich are has nothing to do with it; living a good life without any effort doesWhat Wilderness fails to understand is that I do not promote Socialism. What this thread points out is the stupidity of his party for even making the fear-mongering claim.
If saying healthcare for all and accessible education are ills that will plague the United States, that using tax monies to aid in having a healthy and educated population are bad things, I wonder what kind of human being you really are to want to keep your fellow citizens sick and dumb. Certainly not a humane one.
Who knows, if the government had been able to provide you with some free college, perhaps you could have found the mental capability to understand how Trump broke the law in regards to that hush money payment.Fair enough; I wonder what kind of people will continually steal (morally if not legally) more and more from others simply to further what they find is a "good" cause, without every considering just how "right" it is to simply take whatever they want.
And with your second paragraph, I'm outta here. Not interested in reading insults. When that's all you have to offer it holds no interest, and neither does anything else you might come up with; any credibility you might have had is lost.You will not be missed. You spread false information like it is your job. It's become painful to try and explain easily understandable information to you.
And it is difficult to try to present an alternative explanation to you. Personal insults are seldom the resort of knowledgeable folks.
If that is you, where does it place the credibility of your comments?.
Keep your fellow citizens "sick and dumb," is hat really the thought you want to stand on?
GA
Oh, shit.l I was going to jump in, bit I suspect Wilderness will handle this one on his own.
I think you stepped on your crank on this one Valeant.
GAI post some comments from both sides of the aisle to begin a conversation and he decides to call me wrong on something I'm not even prescribing. I'm tired of his idiocy.
Okay, you have certainly started a conversation. I jumped in on a point better addressed by someone else. So I will leave it there.
GA
"If saying healthcare for all and accessible education are ills that will plague the United States, that using tax monies to aid in having a healthy and educated population are bad things, I wonder what kind of human being you really are to want to keep your fellow citizens sick and dumb. Certainly not a humane one."
Come on, please be genuine about your argument. NO ONE is saying that free anything is bad necessarily. Heck, if someone wants to hand me a million dollars, and I can verify that the money is free from any obligations, I might take it. But that's money being willingly offered.
What you're proposing is theft, and you're justifying it by what that money will buy. It's a means justifying the ends, plain an simple. I don't know how that can be explained any better.
Socialist countries have done what I described above for years. Always the means justifies the end: free healthcare, free higher education, guaranteed wage, etc.
The way that corporations treat employees these days stinks - absolutely. I'd be pleased to see legislation to address it rather than trying to create an illusive utopia.So, wait. Do we commit theft to fund the military? Was it theft to bail out those farmers?
How we choose to use the money we collect in taxes is not theft. Investing in our citizens to make them better people is not theft. It's smart business practice. If those same people do not have medical bills and loans to pay, they can have more disposable income and invest more money in the economy.Funding the military is a legitimate function of the federal government.
I'm not keen on bailing out anyone with government funds - no one at all. But when we're talking about taxing EXPRESSLY for the purpose of the federal government providing things for people supposedly free of charge, then yes, that's theft.
If individual states want to provide these kinds of things, great. Let them work it out like Massachusetts did. State governments have the constitutional authority to tax to provide anything they want, the feds don't.I could agree with you on that point, about it happening at the state level. Sort of a trial and error case study does make more sense. I'm even of the point that the federal government needs to get its spending under control. These massive deficits need to be illegal.
We can agree to disagree about how we view education and healthcare. I see them as investments while you see them as freebies.
"It's a means justifying the ends, plain an simple."
Well, that and "might makes right". We have the might to take whatever we wish and that makes it right. Legally AND morally, if you believe those that excuse it on moral grounds.
By 'Van'
Socialism wouldn't be gaining ground if conservative vulture capitalism worked for most people.From 'Andrew'
It's not exactly the GOP hinting that the Dems are socialists when the leaders of the Dems proudly declare themselves socialists. Most working people can see through this and don't want to support people who can't/won't work.From 'Eric'
Don't we have 2 years left? That being said, I think the goal has been the eradication of the Constitution and replace it with socialism for quite some time. It's the UN mandate. You have to ask yourself, is equality under absolute authority worth your individual liberty?From 'Stea'
Conservatism is the art of taking something that is stupid and making it sound not only palatable but desirable.
In two years, they've inflated the national debt like a balloon, they've shifted the tax burden away from rich people and to the middle class. They've wrecked the health care system. They've destroyed American credibility abroad. They've packed the judicial system with hard-right judges (some of whom have never even tried a case before). They've stolen a Supreme Court seat. They've engineered a government shutdown. They've fired the scientists at EPA, replaced them with coal lobbyists, and gutted the agency's mission. They've gutted consumer financial protections. They've begun pounding the drumbeat of racism loudly and clearly at the southern border, separated families irreversibly, and have put children in cages (literally).
They insult our friends around the world and go chum it up with the world's worst dictators instead. They shriek about "voter fraud" while they themselves commit election fraud so egregious that another election has to be held (at public expense). They kick transgendered people out of the military, making us less safe, just because their tiny brains can't handle someone who doesn't fit perfectly into their preconceived notion of gender norms. Oh, and lest we forget, they may have conspired with a hostile foreign power to tilt the election that swept them into power, and they've been using every bit of their power in government to try to forestall criminal investigations of their conduct in that matter.
And having said all that, that's only a fraction of what they have done. But no, we don't want to talk about ANY of THAT. Instead, we're going to chirp "socialism!" and "Venezuela!" over and over.The economy is stronger than it has been in 20 years at least. And it was Obama who set back race relations. The day he took office 70% of Americans said race relations were good or very good - an all time high. The day he left office only 30% said the same - near an all time low. And Venezuela is a perfect example of what Socialism produces: death, disease, famine, hunger and suffering.
- PrettyPantherposted 5 years ago
0Fear mongering from the fearful. People who fear change will dream up all kinds of horrifying scenarios to justify their own innate fearfulness. You'd think they would learn. Gay marriage didn't destroy the institution of marriage and Obamacare isn't run by death panels pulling the plug on grandma.
Cancer is change. And Cancer is progressive. Some things ought to be feared. And a totalitarian socio-economic system that's already killed 100,000,000 innocent people and enslaved one billion souls is one of them.
Thanks for the education, Valeant.
As I say, Socialism is defined by conservatives as ANY restraint placed upon the Capitalist system. And we know for Capitalism to function in this society, restraints and boundaries are necessary as Capitalism's entire focus is greed and self-benefit. What is good for the general society can not operate based solely upon that.
Have a look at Jacob Riis and his photos of the squalor of late 19th early 20th century America tenement houses and sweat shops to see where laisez-faire capitalism was taken us all.And progressive is defined by liberals as total government control over every aspect of life, with everyone working for government and "earning" the exact same thing (except for those at the top, of course) as everyone else. Government deciding what everyone shall own - what car, what housing, what food in the pantry, everything that we have.
When you make sweeping generalizations, totally and completely out of line with reality, all discussion and conversation is lost, along with any consideration of any points you might have made.Government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, services, and jobs (central planning collectivism) has long been a standard definition of socialism.
From 'Dan'
You want tired economic policies? How about trickle down economics. Large tax cuts, followed by large deficits, followed by Recession. When have GOP policies ever not produced an explosion of deficits and a Recession that Democrats had to fix?The height of idiocy. In eight years Barack Hussein Obama piled on more national debt than over 200 years of presidents before him COMBINED in his plot to destroy what he hates: America.
Please stop drinking the Rush Limbaugh Kool-Aid. Every President in succession going back 50 years has piled on more debt because they were saddled with more debt. In Obama's case, he inherited a crashed economy, so had to spend in order to get the economy back on its feet, which he did. You owe the Obama administration a huge debt of gratitude and instead, you serve up vitriol and accuse him of "hating" America, which is demonstrably silly, offensive, and likely born of racism.
From 'R'
US Const. "We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
The greatest declaration of socialism ever made, should you not understand that then you don't know what Socialism is.Absolute nonsense. The Founders were to a man free market, free enterprise, small limited-government men. The only way to have Socialism is to have an enormous state to run it. Hell, everybody knows that.
Government ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, services, and jobs (central planning collectivism) has long been a standard definition of socialism.
Capitalism has its flaws which do need to be addressed but socialism has failed, at every attempt. Only a fool would advocate it in America.
Jordan Peterson made a true statement about those who seek to implement it. It is driven by resentment and fosters it. You can see that playing out clearly in the groups pushing for it here."Republican Capitalism" are simply code words for "Republican Socialism" which we are seeing right now, SHIFTS Our Wealth to the Elite Filthy Rich Few, while "Democratic Socialism" provides Health-CARE and Higher Wages for ALL Americans:
It will be an easy choice for Americans to vote for Progressive Democrats in 2020, Americans who are right now fed up with being raked over the coals by Conservative Elitists who are driving them in financial strain and even poverty:
Right now we are experiencing "Republican Socialism" and it's destroying our working class and senior citizens:Did you mean to prove me right, so quickly?
No, Live to Learn, I didn't prove you right, anyone can just go back one segment and re-read my last comment, but just like all the last remaining Trump Followers, you are indeed free to believe what you choose regardless :
I'm not a Trump follower. You, and others like you, seem to lack the ability to understand others have independent thought.
"It will be an easy choice for Americans to vote for Progressive Democrats in 2020, Americans who are right now fed up with being raked over the coals by Conservative Elitists who are driving them in financial strain and even poverty:"
As long as the Democratic Party continues its lunge left, it's moving away from what most Americans want. Most Americans understand that trying to grab a hold of security (in this case by stealing), will result in them eventually losing their freedoms.
Understand that there is NO solution to poverty; the causes are complex and can't be corrected by government. Remember the Great Society? Look at Roosevelt's well intentioned by mostly unsuccessful attempt to pull America out the Great Depression.
The problem is that conservatives do not really want to address Capitalism's flaws, witness how Republicans are easing up on more restrictive regulation regarding the banking and finance industries put in place since the 2008 meltdown.
They want laisez faire Capitalism with no protections for labor or the environment to just touch on one or two aspects. With conservatives, it is always "Back to the Future". Of course, Wall Street CEO would consider any justifiable restraint on their operations as "Socialism". Conservative thought is dumb enough to basically let them run off with the store....
Socialism as defined being that the means of production is controlled by the Government has never been true in the United States and there is no real threat of that in the future. The real threat is that Laisez Faire capitalists remain unchallenged to continue to take a mile rather than the inch they are allotted. There is the reality can be seen by anyone who might trouble oneself peruse just a little history.I agree that the powers that be within the Republican party do not appear to understand my concerns on the need to temper capitalistic ideals with safeguards against corporate overreach. However, if both parties are reasonable and work together we would see more progress in areas I think we could both agree on.
But, classic socialism is a real concern. This green new deal wording threatens our freedoms and our way of life. That branch of the Democratic party is attempting to wrest power from the moderates and the slightly left of moderates. I foresee the Democratic party either imploding and leaving us all with a mostly Republican stranglehold on our government or fracturing into separate parties. Because the rising stars are, by independent, Republican and moderate Democrat standards just slam crazy and unrealistic.The Democrats are ideologically keen to the idea of reining in the power and reach of the Corporate class and the finance industry, and that includes their influence peddling in Washington. It is the GOP that have to be convinced to see the danger and get the message. Always being concerned as to just how committed moderate Democrats like (Joe Biden) are toward this end, instead of finding him nestled, all cozy in bed with them.
I am no more a Socialist as a Democrat than you are a follower of Senator Steve King's clan of white supremacy advocate Republicans. But, I am not going to be taken to the cleaners to tolerate Capitalism without boundaries. However, this Green Deal thing may be beyond my point of comfort, even as a staunch advocate for the Left.I feel the same as you Cred, The Green New Deal, as currently publicized is unpalatable. And I would also agree that those promoting it--as is--are either out of touch with the American public or, and I consider this position much more likely, purely pushing or jumping on, an agenda.
But, maybe the Green New Deal can serve a real service as a discussion starter. Surely there are aspects of it, that if pursued in realistic moderation, could benefit our nation.
MAybe it's worth a thread, hmm...
GAIt may very well be worth its own thread, I will have to read up on the Green Deal more closely for useful participation.
Here you go Cred. Read the link and jump in.
The Green Party's Green New Deal is There a discusssion
GA
I don't know that I would agree that it has failed at every attempt. There are a few small, homogeneous countries that are using it successfully. Some for quite a long time, although recent changes increasing the old level of socialism brings to question as to whether it can continue. And some of those are leaving the heavy socialism behind, moving some towards a more capitalistic nation, and doing so successfully.
But only a fool would advocate it in a country the size of America (those successful nations are the size of a single state for the most part). Or one with as mixed a population, in terms of culture, wealth and race. Even religion.
With the spotlight on the self professed democratic socialist currently showing her hypocrisy, self aggrandizement and complete refusal to even attempt to encompass the virtues she is pushing the government to enforce....I think it's fairly obvious what American socialism would look like, if it came to be.
Holier than thou jerks who want us forced to pay for and live by ideas they don't intend to live by.Who are you talking about and what exactly is the hypocrisy?
"And we know for Capitalism to function in this society, restraints and boundaries are necessary as Capitalism's entire focus is greed and self-benefit."
Capitalism's focus is self-interest.
Something wrong with that?
Q. What causes poverty?
A. A lack of education and an inadequate upbringing.
The seeds of poverty are sown in childhood.
We need to improve the way we raise and educate our children, not reduce freedom through the controlling aspects of socialism.
After all, freedom fosters prosperity, not progressivism / socialism.Does this mean that anyone who has money cannot discuss income inequality?
Does that also mean that when Donald Trump says he's concerned about regular people, he must be lying?
Does this also mean that anyone who is wealthy and tries to solve the problems of poor people must, by definition, be a hypocrite?
Related Discussions
- 145
I'm trying to understand Socialists
by Elliott_T 14 years ago
I'm a Capitalist - what that means to me is that the closest thing to an ideal economy we can achieve is one where the government has almost no interference in the private business sector whatsoever. I think you can put Capitalism into one word: Freedom. The freedom to innovate, grow, succeed, or...
- 14
Mises vs. Marx Capitalism vs. Socialism
by ga anderson 5 years ago
I saw Marx mentioned in a thread and then by chance stumbled across this site: misesvsmarx.aier.org - The March of History Of course, I admit it appealed to me because it leans my way, but it does have some good basic information if you are interested in the Marx/Socialism issue but don't want to...
- 117
Republicans are socialists
by James Smith 11 years ago
Hans-Hermann Hoppe in A Theory of Socialism and Capitalism essentially argues that there are in fact only 2 possible economic ideologies: Socialism and Capitalism, and variations of. You either believe there should be aggressive intervention in the economy or you do not.Since Republicans are...
- 115
Socialism 101 - A Cooperative Effort
by Charles James 13 years ago
So many people are ignorant of socialism or misunderstand it that much of my "political" time on Hubpages is spent working on misconceptions. I have been doing some preparatory work for a nest of hubs about Socialism, tentatively labelled "Socialism 101", effectively a...
- 70
Democrats Are Not Socialists
by Kathryn L Hill 5 years ago
Really? Prove it! What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?Wondering!
- 60
What is the big deal about socialism?
by Peeples 11 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...