CPAC Socialism Fearmongering and the Internet's Rebuttals

Jump to Last Post 1-17 of 17 discussions (85 posts)
  1. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    https://usercontent2.hubstatic.com/14435909.jpg
    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...

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
      JAKE Earthshineposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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:

      1. profile image77
        Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

      2. peterstreep profile image78
        peterstreepposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        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        The whole fearmongering and fingerpointing towards comunism is old fashioned spindoctering that’s long out of date.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.

        1. Live to Learn profile image84
          Live to Learnposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          Black white fear mongering is the only weapon in Jake's arsenal.

    2. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image84
        Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        +1.

      2. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. crankalicious profile image91
          crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. crankalicious profile image91
              crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              Yes, I mean as a percentage of income.

              1. wilderness profile image96
                wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                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?

                1. crankalicious profile image91
                  crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

                  1. GA Anderson profile image91
                    GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                    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

                    GA

  2. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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?

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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?

  3. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

  4. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

  5. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. wilderness profile image96
        wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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 does

        1. Valeant profile image95
          Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          What 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.

          1. wilderness profile image96
            wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                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

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Considering none of the comments that I posted here were actually mine, but somehow I was wrong, according to Wilderness, I think calling him out for that seemed fairly appropriate.  When attacked, I have no issue responding in kind.

          2. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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.

            GA

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I 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.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                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

          3. profile image77
            Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            "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.

            1. Valeant profile image95
              Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              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.

              1. profile image77
                Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                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.

                1. Valeant profile image95
                  Valeantposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                  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.

            2. wilderness profile image96
              wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              "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.

  6. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    By 'Van'

    Socialism wouldn't be gaining ground if conservative vulture capitalism worked for most people.

  7. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

  8. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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?

  9. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  10. PrettyPanther profile image83
    PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks ago

    Fear 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.

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  11. Credence2 profile image80
    Credence2posted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

    2. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  12. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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?

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. crankalicious profile image91
        crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

  13. Valeant profile image95
    Valeantposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. James A Watkins profile image89
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  14. Live to Learn profile image84
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
      JAKE Earthshineposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      "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:

      1. Live to Learn profile image84
        Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Did you mean to prove me right, so quickly?

        1. JAKE Earthshine profile image78
          JAKE Earthshineposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          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 :

          1. Live to Learn profile image84
            Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            I'm not a Trump follower. You, and others like you, seem to lack the ability to understand others have independent thought.

      2. profile image77
        Hxprofposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        "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.

    2. Credence2 profile image80
      Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

      1. Live to Learn profile image84
        Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        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.

        1. Credence2 profile image80
          Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          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.

          1. GA Anderson profile image91
            GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            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...

            GA

            1. Credence2 profile image80
              Credence2posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              It may very well be worth its own thread, I will have to read up on the Green Deal more closely for useful participation.

              1. GA Anderson profile image91
                GA Andersonposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Here you go Cred. Read the link and jump in.

                The Green Party's Green New Deal is There a discusssion

                GA

    3. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      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.

  15. Live to Learn profile image84
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    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.

    1. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Who are you talking about and what exactly is the hypocrisy?

  16. Kathryn L Hill profile image77
    Kathryn L Hillposted 6 weeks ago

    "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.

    1. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      I feel an Ayn Rand quote coming on.

  17. Onusonus profile image77
    Onusonusposted 5 weeks ago

    https://scontent-sea1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/54255073_411666089402381_1985313486858616832_n.jpg?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-sea1-1.xx&oh=627432e18c381548d9e40db11aa8ae95&oe=5D1A9A8A

    1. crankalicious profile image91
      crankaliciousposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      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?

 
working

This website uses cookies

As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

Show Details
Necessary
HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
Features
Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
Marketing
Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
Statistics
Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)