There are great things that socialism has offered in our society: Fire departments, the VA to take care of our soldiers (our whole military for that matter), the highway system, national parks, the police, etc., etc., etc.
If you could bring back any recent President right now
- Thread starter Johnnie Cockran
- Start date
There are great things that socialism has offered in our society: Fire departments, the VA to take care of our soldiers (our whole military for that matter), the highway system, national parks, the police, etc., etc., etc.
That’s not all socialism is.
plus, it’s laughable when I read your “government owned firms have no reason...”. As if in our current system we don’t have private contractors tied to the hip to the defense department/highway department/military/EPA, etc... being totally inefficient ct, crooked, corrupt, in bed with politicians, overcharging taxpayers by hundreds of millions, and breaking the law numerous times, etc........
Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Both are EXTREMELY popular socialist programs.
Dr. Deborah Birx, who was appointed by Obama and retained by Trump and his leading this effort, already stated the reason for this. We already had a test plan developed, and the WHO test produced false positive 50% of the time and even had some false negatives. Testing doesn't help if you can't rely on the results.
She was not talking about the WHO test. She clarified she was referring to the early tests from China which is not what WHO recommended.
You sound just like Bernie Sanders. LOL People were forced to pay into social security. Did you not know that? Yes, private companies sell to the government. State and federal. But, the government doesn't own them. There might be some exceptions. Thank God. Have you ever worked in the private sector? You haven't said anything that makes me believe you have. If you have, you must have been very unhappy. I have worked for companies and individuals that I wasn't happy with, but I didn't become a pro-big government socialist.
Uh,
I think you need to read my post again. you made my point for me.
You’ve obviously never run into a business whose sole/only contract is with the government, who also directs them where to buy their products, and who directs their daily work. Who owns who then? I’ve run into companies whose sole contract is at SRS. I’ve know private organizations whose sole contract is with the defense department, it’s not uncommon in America.
I worked for the government for 6 years. I’ve worked for 4 private companies since college for a total of 20 years in the private sector.
I’m not a “big government socialist” which is a strange statement. Is there a small government socialist out there somewhere?
I very plainly said that we have socialist elements in our society and government too. Some are very popular.
I'm 72 years old. Many in my generation had no discipline in raising their children. It is sad to read what you and a few other liberals post on this forum. But, like I said, I'm partly responsible. And, ashamed.
I am certainly not a fan of Bernie Sanders, or socialism as a broad, economic theory. That said, and this isn't directed at you (I just happened to respond to your post since this topic is all over the place), it's laughable for people to say, or make the argument, that socialism is not already here in the US. Both Republicans and Democrats advocate for massive spending and entitlement programs, that are most certainly socialist in nature. As a very recent example, the President's proposal to bail out certain industries due to the recent downturn in business because of the virus. If we were truly a capitalist society, you would not direct government funds to save those sectors. Additionally, his proposal to send Americans a check directly, something that has happened in the past (not to this extent however, at least from my research), is certainly a socialist policy. Also, his trade policies are ardently protectionist in nature, which is a core tenant of socialist economies. In fact, his trade polices are further left than Hillary Clinton (very similar to that of Sanders).
As I have been saying for days on this site, and on multiple threads, people really need to stop throwing the terms "socialist" and "fascist" (or even racist) around to those groups they don't like. The majority of Democrats are just as much socialists as Republicans are fascists; meaning they aren't those in the least bit. Yes, some Democrats are more left wing than others, and some Republicans advocate for more authoritarian policies (which I argue come from the same route problem, but that is a theoretical/ historical argument for another day). That said, these are political strategies developed by political consultants in order for people to fall back to their "camps". Honestly, there isn't much of a difference between the two parties, and the vast majority of important polices stay the same administration to administration.
Most people love their country, whether they are Republican or Democrat. Have empathy for your fellow American; especially in this moment. If my experience with politics has taught me anything, it's that we really are all in this together, and we all share common goals/ principles. We all need to be more civil with one another, and for the love of God, stop getting your opinions from talk show hosts. The majority of them care about ratings (money) and staying relevant. Do not listen to Hannity, Maddow, Piro, Dobbs, or Lemon.....please.
Last edited:
If you haven’t learned at 72 that there are many elements of socialism in America now, and last year, and 30 years ago, and 90 years ago, etc. I’m sorry but the reality is - it is.
100% correct.
Trump has proposed and enacted some obvious socialist policies but for some reason his supporters are oblivious to this fact. Yep, the bailout is coming. Yep, direct payments to citizens is coming.
Do you think all of his supporters are oblivious to this? Do you believe all his supporters support everything he does?
Social security is a financial train wreck even though it gets 6.2% of every single paycheck cut to every employee in the US (caps at ~$137K). Medicare is so fantastic that people their monthly premium and then pay for more coverage from private companies to cover all the shortcoming, which are many. Then, all the rest of us with private coverage end up paying more because medicare and medicaid payments to doctors are so low doctors have to charge us more to keep the doors open. If everyone paid what the federal government pays doctors, there would be no healthcare in the US.
So, yes, recipients of those programs are happy with them. Being overpaid and undercharged is almost always popular. While it lasts. But like Margaret Thatcher put so well, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Spot on.
So, yes, recipients of those programs are happy with them. Being overpaid and undercharged is almost always popular. While it lasts. But like Margaret Thatcher put so well, the trouble with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. Spot on.
I think there is a disconnect. They hear so much about socialism from talk radio and Fox, but it’s directed at Bernie and some Democrats. They never look in the mirror. It seems to escape them that they enjoy some benefits of socialism and Trump is advocating for some of it now.
they never consider the socialism that we already have, that they are generally very happy with, or depend on. This is why so many young people tend to like socialism because they see the hypocrisy of so many Americans relying on socialist programs yet supposedly hating socialism. Young people are great at sniffing out hypocrites.
And yes, there are some supporters that don’t care what Trump proposes, does, or says. They’ll support it because whatever he says is ok.
Last edited:
And socialism isn't a type of government, it's an economic policy. It usually thrives under totalitarian governments because it is easier for dictators to take everything and redistribute what they want. We have seen how that works out over and over again, which is why smart people do not support the push towards socialism that the left seems to happy with.
You forgot the bailouts to corporate farmers while small farmers ended up in bankruptcy and sold to companies from the Netherlands.
There is no disconnect. Just because a government provides a service, that doesn't mean it's socialist. Social security pushes the boundary with it's mandate, but you can still also provide your own retirement outside of social security. The government does not own the entire market and own/control everything. Now, if the government decided to nationalize 401k s (democrats have loved this idea in the past), then you are over into socialism. Entire control of that segment where the government takes everything and bureaucrats decide who gets some of it back. Never ends well.
And that's why smart people don't want medicare for all. Imagine where we would be if we didn't have the innovation of the free market to help us with our current situation. Big government system are notoriously slow and inefficient. We would be in big trouble now if they were our only line of defense.
You are right- the farmer bailout was bigger than the auto industry bailout that republicans HATED- when Obama was doing it.
suddenly when Trump sent the farmers even more money, they just didn’t have an issue with bailouts anymore. It was a miracle.
You come across as one of those folks that thinks he's the smartest person in the room, kinda pompous the way you talk about "they" think and "they" believe everything, "they" watch Hannity for info, "they" would blah...blah.. You know that the folks you and many Dems talk down too are the reason you will see Trump as President after the next election. Basically what I'm trying to say is, keep up the good work!
You made an awful lot of blanket statements regarding people you’ve never met.
“They hear...”
“They never look...”
“They never consider...”
Just be careful.
Oh, I’m going off people I do know. I’m not making statements about people out of thin air.
I hear a ton of anti socialist stuff all the time from acquaintances, family members, etc. I shake my head realizing how they skip over the socialist programs we have, that they benefit from. It’s obvious they aren’t considering those things.
I don’t care that they don’t like big bad socialism. I care that they benefit from it and don’t realize it.
Hey, I get to post my opinion too.
and I’m posting about people I know. It’s not as if they don’t say some of this silly stuff repeatedly.
but it’s obvious there is a disconnect. When people benefit from socialism but complain about it constantly, that means they don’t realize what they like can also be considered socialism in some form.
Last edited:
Haha. Stop for a second and realize you’re not as smart as you think you are. You sound like a 25 year old Silver Coconut.
Obviously I hit a nerve
I’m not on here to post how smart I am. I’m simply describing a fact: America has its fair share of socialism. Many people benefit from it. Many don’t realize that some of that is socialism. This is not a new revelation that I came up with this week.
trump has been sending hundreds of millions to farmers for over a year, paying them directly to prop them up. Obama paid the auto industry hundreds of millions to bail them out. That’s not capitalism. Those are easy, obvious examples.
Obviously I hit a nerve
I’m not on here to post how smart I am. I’m simply describing a fact: America has its fair share of socialism. Many people benefit from it. Many don’t realize that some of that is socialism. This is not a new revelation that I came up with this week.
trump has been sending hundreds of millions to farmers for over a year, paying them directly to prop them up. Obama paid the auto industry hundreds of millions to bail them out. That’s not capitalism. Those are easy, obvious examples.
Hit a nerve? What do you mean?
My point about thinking you’re too smart is when you imply that the people around you dont understand things to the same level as you or they haven’t considered them.
Sorry, those are social programs within a representative republic and capitalism, not socialism.
Not talking about the one post. Talking about your posts in general. Post all you want, I have an opinion and will post mine also. Just so happens Silver posted the exact same thing 2 seconds after I did so it kinda validated my post.
Right, just redefine it. That’s the easier way.
government picking winners and losers, propping up private business with sweetheart deals and below free market loans, subsidies to those same private companies to keep prices artificially low in the free market. That’s not capitalism no matter how much you redefine it or who it benefits.
but we won’t calll that socialism actual socialism because... well... we don’t like socialism
Ronald famously warned that Medicare would lead us away from freedom and toward socialism. Barry Goldwater considered Jack Kennedy a socialist and called Lyndon Johnson one as well. America did not lapse into a collectivist dystopia with access to Medicare nor embark on the road to serfdom under the tenures of Kennedy and Johnson. Reagan’s fears and Goldwater’s fancies serve to remind us that “socialism” is in the eye of the beholder.
The specter of “socialism” has served as a convenient bugaboo for the right to invoke whenever its interests are threatened by progressive legislation or liberal advocacy, a pejorative to smear a broad swath of economic reforms that challenge the corporate status quo. With the resurgence of a democratic left, it has become common parlance in conservative circles to tar the entire spectrum of liberal opposition with the broad brush of “socialism.”
A history of socialism in America over more than a century, shows that as it evolved its effect was not to replace capitalism but to ameliorate its excesses through democratic means. Many socialist goals were subsumed within the later reforms of the Progressive Era and the New Deal, achieving wide popular support. The prescription may have had “Democrat” on the label but the inspiration often came from socialists.
In this sense, conservative critics are correct in labeling various liberal initiatives as “socialist” but few of their followers would be willing to do away with such benefits as Social Security and Medicare, even though they were decried as socialism when first introduced.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-socialism-made-america-great
The specter of “socialism” has served as a convenient bugaboo for the right to invoke whenever its interests are threatened by progressive legislation or liberal advocacy, a pejorative to smear a broad swath of economic reforms that challenge the corporate status quo. With the resurgence of a democratic left, it has become common parlance in conservative circles to tar the entire spectrum of liberal opposition with the broad brush of “socialism.”
A history of socialism in America over more than a century, shows that as it evolved its effect was not to replace capitalism but to ameliorate its excesses through democratic means. Many socialist goals were subsumed within the later reforms of the Progressive Era and the New Deal, achieving wide popular support. The prescription may have had “Democrat” on the label but the inspiration often came from socialists.
In this sense, conservative critics are correct in labeling various liberal initiatives as “socialist” but few of their followers would be willing to do away with such benefits as Social Security and Medicare, even though they were decried as socialism when first introduced.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/how-socialism-made-america-great
the term serves as a red flag on the talk-radio circuit. And while it is doubtful that some of the demagogues who bandy the term can actually explain it, they aver to know it when they see it. The bogeyman they conjure up comes in the shape of a foreign ideology that imposes Orwellian controls on society, menaces freedom, threatens property, saps individuality and subjects us to the dysfunction of a command economy in which meritocracy is replaced by mediocrity and the undeserving secure an unwarranted free ride.
That this image has little to do with the multifarious aspects of socialism does not prevent right-wing ideologues, not least among them President Trump, from using it indiscriminately to scare voters and energize the faithful. Contrary to this caricature, socialism has deep roots in American soil and an honorable place in the journey of our nation to achieve justice for all.
As Justice Louis D. Brandeis observed: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
That this image has little to do with the multifarious aspects of socialism does not prevent right-wing ideologues, not least among them President Trump, from using it indiscriminately to scare voters and energize the faithful. Contrary to this caricature, socialism has deep roots in American soil and an honorable place in the journey of our nation to achieve justice for all.
As Justice Louis D. Brandeis observed: “We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we cannot have both.”
And finally
Conservatives would tell us that it is the job of government to protect the entrepreneur’s right to own and control his property, and then get out of the way, thereby guaranteeing his freedom, and ours. Critics of this 18th-century notion might ask: What happens when we effectively become part of the owner’s property and the proprietor is a faceless corporation whose only obligation is to its shareholders? The question Socialists asked 100 years ago is again a pressing one today: When economic power is concentrated in the hands of a corporate handful, what becomes of our society, and our democracy? A new generation is no longer intimidated by the wolf-cry of “socialism” but is willing to reclaim the socialist ethos as a legitimate part of the American reformist experience.
Conservatives would tell us that it is the job of government to protect the entrepreneur’s right to own and control his property, and then get out of the way, thereby guaranteeing his freedom, and ours. Critics of this 18th-century notion might ask: What happens when we effectively become part of the owner’s property and the proprietor is a faceless corporation whose only obligation is to its shareholders? The question Socialists asked 100 years ago is again a pressing one today: When economic power is concentrated in the hands of a corporate handful, what becomes of our society, and our democracy? A new generation is no longer intimidated by the wolf-cry of “socialism” but is willing to reclaim the socialist ethos as a legitimate part of the American reformist experience.
first things first, you didn’t allude to this being my opinion at all, but I don’t like Sanders one bit. I think he’s a nut case. But if any “socialist” became president - these types of programs are the most they could ever accomplish because, as you pointed out, we are a representative republic. Sanders couldn’t change the constitution to make it otherwise because the majority of Americans wouldn’t want that - and their representatives wouldn’t vote for it. Checks and balances.
This is the main reason why all the screams of “socialism!” are not only unfounded, but ignorant. We all benefit from socialist programs. All of us on a daily basis. The same way the occupy Wall Street people were idiots, those railing against socialism are idiots. We all benefit from the good points of both. There needs to be a balance of both for us to survive.
Hey just curious with with the trillion dollar bailout about to be activated to go to hard hit corporations and citizens what do you think about that type of socialism? All done under a republican president and Senate
USCALUMNI
Last edited:
It’s certainly modern Republican socialism. The people who make the least and are most likely to see negative impacts from all of this are the ones that will receive the least.
The impact this disaster has on each person is very personal. Who it impacts the most is debatable.
