America Will Never Be A Socialist Country

[tres borrachos]

You can thank AOC and her socialist friends for that...as well as the media who splash her nonsense all over the multimedia echo chamber.

I don't need to thank AOC for anything. She doesn't occupy space in my head. I'm not like you. I don't tinkle my panties over one young, clueless Congressional rep.

 

[manofknowledge]

You can thank AOC and her socialist friends for that...as well as the media who splash her nonsense all over the multimedia echo chamber.

The term "socialism" dates back to the early 19th century and has been used to scare people ever since.

 

[jimbo]

i find it annoying that the US lags behind the rest of the first world when it comes to health care access / costs, basic benefits, job security, and quality of life. however, the way to fix this couldn't be more clear. we have to demand better, and vote as many Republicans out as possible. is that socialism, though? nope. i don't support seizing the means of production and giving it to the workers.

But you do. Your 3 step program toward this worker utopia does exactly that.

And now you advocate " health care access / costs, basic benefits, job security, and quality of life". While still claiming you don't want government interfering with economics.

 

[Keridan]

When you claim education and social security are failed programs, it is you who needs to comprehend.

Education is not negotiable. I am for outlawing private education full stop.

We would see very quickly how excellent our education system would become if we stopped rich elitists from avoiding programs they help to demonize if we took away their pet projects.

Like I said, carcinogens in kids clothing. That's something Leonard Lance, a republican, wants to enshrine permanently by refusing TSCA reform.

These are issues people care about, and when I hear idiotic libertarians go on and on about "consumers making choices", it always makes me laugh. How can you make a choice if you're not told what's in the product? How can a consumer be informed when secrecy prevents them from obtaining the truth?

Those are market based protectionist ideas, which you clearly support.

Okay. I get it. You aren't that bright and you are determined to show it off. That's great for you. The problem is that I get sick of engaging people on here who aren't interested in real discussion. Your posts so far put you in that category, but we'll see what happens.

Education is a massively failed program. In fact, not only did it fail primary education, but government grants/loans getting involved completely blew up the cost of college. Every time we spend more taxes on schools, they do worse in all categories. Having been raised in a family of teachers, professors, and being in school myself and my two children, I can easily see how poorly the money is spent. Of course, in your intellectual dishonesty, you assumed I want it all private. That's not true either. I want competition to play some part so that we might actually see something resembling efficiency. Several programs have been offered over the years to promote this.

Would you care to show me how Social Security will continue to fund when input is always down and outtake is always up? It's a program that saved millions from dying poor and alone. It was done completely through government with no accountability again, though. Therefore, inevitably, it failed. Several options are presented to fix it, but everyone is too partisan to take it on. They won't even touch it these days because it's a loser for both sides.

You also make the general failure of an assumption that libertarians are anarchists. Market regulation (as a minimized practice) is necessary. Of course it is! There is no consumer group large enough to watch for potential dangers, like dangerous substances, monopolies, etc. We want as little government as needed. Not none. We also believe in social programs... when they make sense and are designed to make us LESS dependent on government.

 

[Exquisitor]

The President announced in his State of the Union speech last night that America will never be a Socialist country. That was well said as long as one differentiates between the text book definition of Socialism and the Fox News definition of Socialism.
It is not Socialist to give your working class four weeks of vacation by law. Every country in Europe does this. That doesn't include legal holidays.
It is not Socialist to give your working class sick leave by law. Europe does this.
It is not Socialist to give employees paid family leave. Europe does this.

It appears that Fox News gets to define Socialism as anything that would make employee lives better at a cost.
Europe has many political parties and one of them is Social Democrats. Social Democrats are what our Democratic party was before the lobbyists corrupted them.

I wouldn't say the Democrats are corrupted yet, we haven't had a chance to see them in action, always it was Obama, Obama and now Trump will complain because the shutdown or something else ruined their jump start of a running motor.

So they will want to try again and all the bright voters, are going to look at the Republican field and say, "I Like this one."

 

[Hadrian]

I think that people need to first define what they mean by "Socialism"

I am quoting the definition of Socialism as was published by the Dictionary of Business Terms copyright 1987
"Socialism economic system in which government owns or controls many major industries, but may allow markets to set prices in many areas."

I have found an older definition because many newer definitions are done to suit political purposes. Note the copyright date above.

 

[pilot16]

Wrong. The more they control the means of production the closer you get to communism.

Take some tips from Europe?

You mean like having to list carcinogens that may be in children's products? Is that evil? In the US corporations have free reign to put carcinogens into their products and conceal them under proprietary laws and loop holes like the fragrance loop hole.

You tell me what ****ing capitalist or republican is speaking out against this practice.

We have a whole lot to learn from Europe.

While I might agree, there still are a lot of Americans who feel we broke away from Europe for a reason. Lets not forget those who came here originally were the rebels not the ones who supported Europe or what was happening there. So it still is harbored in Americans minds, "we dont want to be Europe."

 

[sangha]

I do not think so, Obscurity. I think the United States has learned how to overspend tax dollars, over-borrow sovereign debt, stagnate and crumble without taking lessons from the European Union. The only major difference I see between the United States and European Union is that not only do the governments overspend, the governments then force the private sector to overspend on employee benefits.

I do not think we are even close to over-spending or over-borrowing.

If we took the right wing meme that govt should budget the way a family does, we would have to spend and borrow much more. After all, our debt is somewhere around 1-1.5 ties our annual income --ie gdp-- whereas most families have a mortgage, and other forms of debt, that represents several years of income.

 

[Jezcoe]

I am quoting the definition of Socialism as was published by the Dictionary of Business Terms copyright 1987
"Socialism economic system in which government owns or controls many major industries, but may allow markets to set prices in many areas."

I have found an older definition because many newer definitions are done to suit political ends. Note the copyright date above.

Yeah.

That is the definition that I use also.

To often I see it used as a scare word defined as "something that the man on the radio told me I shouldn't like"

 

[Felis Leo]

And you completely ignore the reality of what I posted. Yes, the US overspends. It does not overtax. We are injected into too many conflicts and are focused on too many geostrategic goals to focus on our own.

However, the EU handles chemicals and whatnot far more intelligently, than our "do harm first, recompense by suing later" system. It must be reformed. For too long manufacturers have been able to poison our people and lie to them with the cover of republican politicians offering anti-regulatory rhetoric, solely to their benefit.

Here is my thought on this particular example, Obscurity, and I am willing to meet you halfway. People want to buy what they want to buy, and they certainly have a right to ask what is in the product or if there are toxic chemicals. Now, I do not want businesses to be forced to do expensive tests, if they cannot afford to. Small businesses that are creating products may not be able to do this. So here is my compromise. For those companies that cannot afford to do tests, rather than being regulated out of business by larger companies that can afford to, they can instead opt to put a label that states: "This Product Has Not Undergone Any Form of Chemical Composition Testing, and May or May Not Contain Chemical Products or Byproducts That Are Hazardous to Human Health. This Product is Used at the Risk of the Purchaser."

Then people are aware and can make their decision. And I think once people are aware, they should be free to purchase whatever they want if they know the risk they are undertaking.

 

[pilot16]

Here is my thought on this particular example, Obscurity, and I am willing to meet you halfway. People want to buy what they want to buy, and they certainly have a right to ask what is in the product or if there are toxic chemicals. Now, I do not want businesses to be forced to do expensive tests, if they cannot afford to. Small businesses that are creating products may not be able to do this. So here is my compromise. For those companies that cannot afford to do tests, rather than being regulated out of business they can put a label that states: "This Product Has Not Undergone Any Form of Chemical Composition Testing, and May or May Not Contain Chemical Products or Byproducts That Are Hazardous to Human Health. This Product is Used at the Risk of the Purchaser."

Then people are aware and can make their decision.

Monsanto is in the pockets of politicians of all sides. Thats why many of their products are banned in Europe but not here. Look at the controversy over GMOs. Roundup. Few in politics would say boo to them.

 

[Helix]

Our quality of care is higher and raises the standards around the world by making R&D profitable, better equipment available and more. There is a big reason 17 of the best 20 hospitals in the world are in the US and most of the best docs in the world run here as soon as they can after graduation to practice here.

I'll give you vacation benefits. I practice different personally with my employees. Fringe benefits are something we do lag on.

We could get into these points all day. They are relevant, but details on a larger picture. I don't think you support seizing production, but as Luther pointed out, enough regulation has the same effect.

We do make some sacrifices in return for being the best at many many things. It's hard to find the balance.

Even as a libertarian, I know free market without regulation is a sick joke. Adam Smith himself saw flaws that could arise a hundred years before they did. If we go too far with regulation, though, we have the same people running private business who run the department of education, social security, and a hundred other failed programs. It has to be done in pieces and stopped at the right point.

i'm well acquainted with how R&D works, and how companies have already streamlined it and are automating a lot of the process. they'll be fine if we enact a first world health care access system. if not, i see a lucrative public sector role in the process. when it comes to antibiotic discovery, for example, we need to be doing that right now, as other medicines are much more profitable and are getting priority. that will work fine until it doesn't. as for overregulation, i don't support that. i don't support under-regulation, either. finding the sweet spot isn't easy, granted.

 

[Obscurity]

Okay. I get it. You aren't that bright and you are determined to show it off. That's great for you. The problem is that I get sick of engaging people on here who aren't interested in real discussion. Your posts so far put you in that category, but we'll see what happens.

Insulting my intelligence when embracing a kindergarten, selfish ideology like libertarianism is rather hilarious. But let's continue, despite your patronizing, monkey poo posts.

Education is a massively failed program. In fact, not only did it fail primary education, but government grants/loans getting involved completely blew up the cost of college. Every time we spend more taxes on schools, they do worse in all categories. Having been raised in a family of teachers, professors, and being in school myself and my two children, I can easily see how poorly the money is spent. Of course, in your intellectual dishonesty, you assumed I want it all private. That's not true either. I want competition to play some part so that we might actually see something resembling efficiency. Several programs have been offered over the years to promote this.

My dishonesty? No. Competition in this area is a fraud. Education is an investment in our future and -all- children deserve equal access; not outcome, access. This is why private schools and charter schools (the failed, abject, nonsensical types you libertarian types push) are ridiculous. They are also not privately funded, but rely more and more on tax payer hand outs, which as a libertarian you ought to oppose; especially since alot of private schools are religious. Why make non religious folks pay to put your kids through religious schooling?

The entire notion of competition in primary education is a failure. We don't need competition. We need equality of quality and equality of access throughout this nation. That is something you lot despise, because you attempt to skew everything by arguing an economic stance. This is not an economic issue. Its a social issue. One we have failed at miserably.

Would you care to show me how Social Security will continue to fund when input is always down and outtake is always up? It's a program that saved millions from dying poor and alone. It was done completely through government with no accountability again, though. Therefore, inevitably, it failed. Several options are presented to fix it, but everyone is too partisan to take it on. They won't even touch it these days because it's a loser for both sides.

The libertarian ideal would replace ss with a private program, which, if instituted how it was in your Junta-utopia of Pinot Che's Chilea, would see an immediate theft of 25% of the wealth of investors due to "fees."

SS needs help but it has not failed. Your assertion is baseless.

You also make the general failure of an assumption that libertarians are anarchists. Market regulation (as a minimized practice) is necessary. Of course it is! There is no consumer group large enough to watch for potential dangers, like dangerous substances, monopolies, etc. We want as little government as needed. Not none. We also believe in social programs... when they make sense and are designed to make us LESS dependent on government.

Tell me what libertarians are out there advocating for TSCA reform. Tell me what libertarians are out there advocating for an end to loop holes that allow carcinogens in our clothing and other products without disclosure to the public. Tell me what libertarians are out there arguing to bust up the big monopolies that already exist in essentially every market in this economy.

I will wait.

 

[Helix]

But you do. Your 3 step program toward this worker utopia does exactly that.

And now you advocate " health care access / costs, basic benefits, job security, and quality of life". While still claiming you don't want government interfering with economics.

no, i don't support seizing the means of production no matter how you twist it. saying things out loud doesn't make them true.

 

[Keridan]

Insulting my intelligence when embracing a kindergarten, selfish ideology like libertarianism is rather hilarious. But let's continue, despite your patronizing, monkey poo posts.

Okay, I gave you a shot. If you ever want to have a discussion where you are discussing real ideas instead of what you perceive my party to be, let me know. At this point I'm doubting your abilities. But then, you think the department of education is a winner, so...

Anyway, good luck with that and all.

 

[ludin]

The President announced in his State of the Union speech last night that America will never be a Socialist country. That was well said as long as one differentiates between the text book definition of Socialism and the Fox News definition of Socialism.
It is not Socialist to give your working class four weeks of vacation by law. Every country in Europe does this. That doesn't include legal holidays.
It is not Socialist to give your working class sick leave by law. Europe does this.
It is not Socialist to give employees paid family leave. Europe does this.

It appears that Fox News gets to define Socialism as anything that would make employee lives better at a cost.
Europe has many political parties and one of them is Social Democrats. Social Democrats are what our Democratic party was before the lobbyists corrupted them.

In a free society we leave it up to the businesses to decide their benefits.
nothing stops companies from giving out 4 weeks of vacation. in most places after working there for 5 years
you get close to 4 weeks.

I have 5 weeks of vacation with my company.
it depends on how you are classified as a worker. usually vacation etc are benefits for full time employee's.

you along with the government also falsely assume that all businesses can afford that.
some can others can't.

 

[Obscurity]

While I might agree, there still are a lot of Americans who feel we broke away from Europe for a reason. Lets not forget those who came here originally were the rebels not the ones who supported Europe or what was happening there. So it still is harbored in Americans minds, "we dont want to be Europe."

That's sheer idiocy, since we broke away from a MONARCHY, not a union like the EU.

 

[Keridan]

i'm well acquainted with how R&D works, and how companies have already streamlined it and are automating a lot of the process. they'll be fine if we enact a first world health care access system. if not, i see a lucrative public sector role in the process. when it comes to antibiotic discovery, for example, we need to be doing that right now, as other medicines are much more profitable and are getting priority. that will work fine until it doesn't. as for overregulation, i don't support that. i don't support under-regulation, either. finding the sweet spot isn't easy, granted.

Unfortunately, the first part of your post addresses predictions that we would both be hard pressed to fully argue. I will, of course, grant that human ingenuity is a miracle I believe in (kinda have to with my party) and I'm sure they would find a way. I just have a prediction that your way makes it much harder than it needs to be. I can see that you reasonably disagree.

The second part, about finding the sweet spot, we agree on. Maybe a different idea where that is, but I don't see what you've posted so far as crossing any lines on the socialist scale and falling into that system.

 

[pilot16]

That's sheer idiocy, since we broke away from a MONARCHY, not a union like the EU.

True but many view the EU as authoritarian. They see Brexit and grumblings in France as the beginning of the end. Suppose the same was said about the US at the end of the 1800s.

 

[Obscurity]

Here is my thought on this particular example, Obscurity, and I am willing to meet you halfway. People want to buy what they want to buy, and they certainly have a right to ask what is in the product or if there are toxic chemicals. Now, I do not want businesses to be forced to do expensive tests, if they cannot afford to. Small businesses that are creating products may not be able to do this. So here is my compromise. For those companies that cannot afford to do tests, rather than being regulated out of business by larger companies that can afford to, they can instead opt to put a label that states: "This Product Has Not Undergone Any Form of Chemical Composition Testing, and May or May Not Contain Chemical Products or Byproducts That Are Hazardous to Human Health. This Product is Used at the Risk of the Purchaser."

Then people are aware and can make their decision. And I think once people are aware, they should be free to purchase whatever they want if they know the risk they are undertaking.

What you propose is just another loop hole. May or may not; no. Just say if it does or doesn't. Why are you against transparency?

As far as the whole entrepreneurs paying for tests; you're wrong. The list of carcinogenic compounds already exists. TSCA has not been reformed for over 40 years. The EU has published a list of known mutagenic and carcinogenic compounds. Why do americans always have to settle for the poisonous trash that is sold to us?

Why are conservatives always against transparency?

 

[Mycroft]

I don't need to thank AOC for anything. She doesn't occupy space in my head. I'm not like you. I don't tinkle my panties over one young, clueless Congressional rep.

You asked a question...I answered it. It has nothing to do with who is in who's head.

Calm yourself down, eh?

 

[Obscurity]

True but many view the EU as authoritarian. They see Brexit and grumblings in France as the beginning of the end. Suppose the same was said about the US at the end of the 1800s.

Brexit is now troubled with a whole lotta buyer's remorse, and as far as France is concerned, that's got more to do with Macron's foolish gas tax.

 

[jimbo]

no, i don't support seizing the means of production no matter how you twist it. saying things out loud doesn't make them true.

Speaking of twisting. You are saying things out loud.

 

[Hari Seldon]

I think that people need to first define what they mean by "Socialism"

Anything proposed by a "Democrat".

 

[Mycroft]

The term "socialism" dates back to the early 19th century and has been used to scare people ever since.

The history and evolution of "socialism" is irrelevant...unless, of course, your aim is to deflect and obfuscate.

If you want to talk about AOC, you need to talk about HER socialism.

Moving on...