why do democrats hate the truth

[WCH]

I didn't, but my sixteen year old daughter did, how does that work???

I'd bitch!

 

[Michael Cole]

It is a vastly different reality depending on its specific implementation. Many would call your current employer based plan "socialist" based on it being heavily government subsidized (100% tax deductible for the employer). Calling something a "pubic option" while mandating that those not opting for it must fund it for those who do it is hardly optional.

I'm not sure if you're understanding my argument. Again, you're focusing on what people may or may not call something. Only a fool cares about a name.

Governments have always, since the beginning of civilization, funded operations with taxation. That your grain was taken to feed your neighbor as he worked building the Great Pyramid does not mean Khufu was a socialist.

A public good is just that. A good or service offered to the public, with or without qualification, funded at least in part by taxation. These goods have always existed, long before Marx. How much one pays in, for what, and what one takes out are irrelevant. We all pay. We all benefit. How the lines are drawn is determined by us, through our votes.

Some things, like legal representation in a criminal case, are constitutional rights. So, since you insist on making this a thought experiment, imagine a constitutional amendment making healthcare a right, just as a public defender is. "If you cannot afford a doctor, one will be appointed to you." There ya go. No socialism. Clean as a whistle.

 

[Irwin Corey]

democrats know that their socialist agenda is flawed and will destroy this country! if everyone knew the truth no one in their right mind would vote democrat! socialism is a joke and can't work, it will make you and I unsafe! Q 2024

Actually Democrats and Progressive independents don't have a "SOCIALIST"agenda. They have an "LABOR" agenda, an "AGENDA" of renewing and reinstating "SOCIAL" programs that underpin AmeriCAN society. VERY, VERY few AmeriCANs want "socialism" or "socialist" anything as part of OUR Government.

IF everyone knew the truth, that the Oligarchs and Plutocrats are brainwashing AmeriCAN "Conservatives" to vote against their own best interests common, work-a-day AmeriCANs would be much better off. It's a cruel joke that the Oligarchs have duped good hard working AmeriCANs into voting them more favors, more advantage, MORE while they have shipped our secure jobs overseas, replaced them with uncertain part time jobs with no benefits and made them think that's a good thing.

"THAT" IS THE TRUTH and the plutocrats hate it, fear it.

 

[Michael Cole]

Words have meaning:

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

Okay. What's your point? The dictionary confirms my argument.

socialism noun

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 and 3 are theories, as I stated.

2 doesn't exist in practice other than NK and maybe a few others.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Okay. What's your point? The dictionary confirms my argument.

socialism noun

so·​cial·​ism | \ ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \

Definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state

3: a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done

1 and 3 are theories, as I stated.

2 doesn't exist in practice other than NK and maybe a few others.

They are all theories in that they do not (and cannot?) exist as a the complete (only) economic/political system in any country - DPRK and Cuba probably come closest. I agree that we have some mixed economies and have repeatedly tried to explain that simply publicly subsidizing the purchase a given private good/service is not socialism since that lacks government ownership or control over the production of that good or provider of that service.

Of those, #3 is the most disturbing (scary) since it is the Marxist transition to communism (total government control - as in #2).

EDIT: In the US, the VA is the closest we come to socialized medical care and that appears to be transitioning to allowing more outside the VA system care providers to be used.

 

[Michael Cole]

They are all theories in that they do not (and cannot?) exist as a the complete (only) economic/political system in any country - DPRK and Cuba probably come closest. I agree that we have some mixed economies and have repeatedly tried to explain that simply publicly subsidizing the purchase a given private good/service is not socialism since that lacks government ownership or control over the production of that good or provider of that service.

Yes, that's the reality. Likewise, pure capitalism cannot exist. The public sector is implied by government itself. The mix falls on a spectrum. Where on the the line it falls is up to us, but I see nothing to gain by referencing 19th century philosophy in 2020.

Of those, #3 is the most disturbing (scary) since it is the Marxist transition to communism (total government control - as in #2).

Sure, but I'd be equally "disturbed" by historical instances of total government control over the masses as by the ideas of Karl Marx.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yes, that's the reality. Likewise, pure capitalism cannot exist. The public sector is implied by government itself. The mix falls on a spectrum. Where on the the line it falls is up to us, but I see nothing to gain by referencing 19th century philosophy in 2020.



Sure, but I'd be equally "disturbed" by historical instances of total government control over the masses as by the ideas of Karl Marx.

Does pure capitalism not still exist for those (private and for profit) entities bidding on totally government funded contracts? There are many purely capitalist providers of public infrastructure and national defense goods/services.

 

[Michael Cole]

Does pure capitalism not still exist for those (private and for profit) entities bidding on totally government funded contracts? There are many purely capitalist providers of public infrastructure and national defense goods/services.

I'm talking about the macroeconomic system, not individual entities. And if we're to be accurate, all business is licensed, regulated and taxed. None of us exist in a bubble.

Pure capitalism, as I'm using it, means the abolition of the public sector, as pure "Marxism" would mean the abolition of the private sector.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I'm talking about the macroeconomic system, not individual entities. And if we're to be accurate, all business is licensed, regulated and taxed. None of us exist in a bubble.

Pure capitalism, as I'm using it, means the abolition of the public sector, as pure "Marxism" would mean the abolition of the private sector.

Licensed, regulated and/or taxed is neither government ownership nor total control. A mixed economy involves cooperation between government and private sector businesses - with neither owning nor controlling the other. Using the expanded Medicaid program (part of PPACA) as an example - the payer is 100% public while the care provider may be public, private non-profit or private for profit - thus it is not socialism.

 

[Moderate Right]

democrats know that their socialist agenda is flawed and will destroy this country! if everyone knew the truth no one in their right mind would vote democrat! socialism is a joke and can't work, it will make you and I unsafe! Q 2024

No. Democrats don't know that their socialist agenda is flawed and will destroy the country. The actually believe in it, even if it is flawed and will destroy the country.

 

[Michael Cole]

Licensed, regulated and/or taxed is neither government ownership nor total control. A mixed economy involves cooperation between government and private sector businesses - with neither owning nor controlling the other. Using the expanded Medicaid program (part of PPACA) as an example - the payer is 100% public while the care provider may be public, private non-profit or private for profit - thus it is not socialism.

Agreed. This is the wise way to view economic transactions, which is why I think your conclusion is irrelevant. James Monroe was president when Karl Marx was born. Modern economies operate mainly out of necessity, without reference to the ideas of Marx. Social Security arose out of the need caused by the Great Depression, not the political philosophy of an exiled 19th century German.

It's a matter of classification, as well. We can nitpick any government "owned" operation, and note that private contractors built the school, for example. That doesn't make operation of public schools any less "socialist" than if the buildings were built by the Seabees.

We have a public sector and a private sector. They each influence the other, as you note. The effects of policy on each are what need to be discussed; the level of "socialism" is irrelevant.

 

[Michael Cole]

No. Democrats don't know that their socialist agenda is flawed and will destroy the country. The actually believe in it, even if it is flawed and will destroy the country.

You can stay under your bed, too. Don't forget your mask!

 

[ttwtt78640]

Agreed. This is the wise way to view economic transactions, which is why I think your conclusion is irrelevant. James Monroe was president when Karl Marx was born. Modern economies operate mainly out of necessity, without reference to the ideas of Marx. Social Security arose out of the need caused by the Great Depression, not the political philosophy of an exiled 19th century German.

It's a matter of classification, as well. We can nitpick any government "owned" operation, and note that private contractors built the school, for example. That doesn't make operation of public schools any less "socialist" than if the buildings were built by the Seabees.

We have a public sector and a private sector. They each influence the other, as you note. The effects of policy on each are what need to be discussed; the level of "socialism" is irrelevant.

That (bolded above) is precisely my point - without having policy specifics available for discussion it is impossible to do so. For example, when someone brings up "Medicare for all" that may (and likely does) not mean everyone is to be included in the current Medicare program (with each covered individual paying a monthly premium and out-of-pocket until meeting an annual deductible) - so what they really mean to discuss must be carefully defined.

 

[Jean-s]

Words have meaning:

Socialism | Definition of Socialism by Merriam-Webster

I believe reposting the same thing is considered spamming.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I believe reposting the same thing is considered spamming.

I believe that not addressing the content of what was posted (and quoted) is not considered debating. Spamming involves widely presenting unsolicted (usually commercial) content - not simply responding in a consistent manner to different people.

 

[Jean-s]

I believe that not addressing the content of what was posted (and quoted) is not considered debating. Spamming involves widely presenting unsolicted (usually commercial) content - not simply responding in a consistent manner to different people.

Nobody considers copying and pasting a dictionary reference to be debating.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Nobody considers copying and pasting a dictionary reference to be debating.

Present the fact that words have specific meanings is important in a debate. Trying assert that (any) public spending is (by definition?) socialism is debatable.

 

[Jean-s]

Present the fact that words have specific meanings is important in a debate. Trying assert that (any) public spending is (by definition?) socialism is debatable.

You have not learned that socialism is not a strict 19th century dogma. Modern socialist political parties emphasize human rights over the free market. Marxist theory made an important contribution to political economics. It is an old debate but not the concern of social democrats in western democracies. You cannot even debate with us because you are fixated on old fashioned and outmoded rhetoric. We do not even have the English language in common. Hence, your repeated references to Webster's Dictionary.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You have not learned that socialism is not a strict 19th century dogma. Modern socialist political parties emphasize human rights over the free market. Marxist theory made an important contribution to political economics. It is an old debate but not the concern of social democrats in western democracies. You cannot even debate with us because you are fixated on old fashioned and outmoded rhetoric. We do not even have the English language in common. Hence, your repeated references to Webster's Dictionary.

Equating government income redistribution schemes ("safety net" programs like Social Security, Medicare, SNAP or AFDC) to socialism is dishonest nonsense regardless of the political opinions of those who may seek to do so. None of those schemes involve government ownership or (total) control of the means of production. Simply because some have decided that taxation is theft, or that receiving "free" private goods/services is a basic human right, does not alter the definition of socialism.

 

[Jean-s]

Equating government income redistribution schemes ("safety net" programs like Social Security, Medicare, SNAP or AFDC) to socialism is dishonest nonsense regardless of the political opinions of those who may seek to do so. None of those schemes involve government ownership or (total) control of the means of production. Simply because some have decided that taxation is theft, or that receiving "free" private goods/services is a basic human right, does not alter the definition of socialism.

You are mistaken. Not a single socialist party in the European Union favors state ownership of all production. Some economies here do not produce that much to begin with because they are mostly derived by services such as tourism, finances, and small businesses. Not a single socialist party advocates that all men's barber shops should be owned by the state and run by government bureaucrats. Seriously, people would laugh at you if they heard you make such arguments.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are mistaken. Not a single socialist party in the European Union favors state ownership of all production. Some economies here do not produce that much to begin with because they are mostly derived by services such as tourism, finances, and small businesses. Not a single socialist party advocates that all men's barber shops should be owned by the state and run by government bureaucrats. Seriously, people would laugh at you if they heard you make such arguments.

I never made such (bolded above) claims so your straw man argument fails completely. HAND

 

[Middleground]

I guess that you enjoy (someone) paying much more taxes.

I don't have to pay a dime for healthcare. I live is a society with happier people, less poverty, much better services, and educated people. I'd say I am waaaaaay ahead of you.

 

[Jonsa]

By whom?

the citizens themselves. go figger.

 

[ttwtt78640]

I don't have to pay a dime for healthcare. I live is a society with happier people, less poverty, much better services, and educated people. I'd say I am waaaaaay ahead of you.

Unless you are receiving medical care from a volunteer provider, someone is paying that medical care provider quite a few dimes for it.

 

[Jonsa]

Agreed. This is the wise way to view economic transactions, which is why I think your conclusion is irrelevant. James Monroe was president when Karl Marx was born. Modern economies operate mainly out of necessity, without reference to the ideas of Marx. Social Security arose out of the need caused by the Great Depression, not the political philosophy of an exiled 19th century German.

It's a matter of classification, as well. We can nitpick any government "owned" operation, and note that private contractors built the school, for example. That doesn't make operation of public schools any less "socialist" than if the buildings were built by the Seabees.

We have a public sector and a private sector. They each influence the other, as you note. The effects of policy on each are what need to be discussed; the level of "socialism" is irrelevant.

yeah but how can you fit that on a bumpersticker. It just doesn't make for a decent stereotypical partisan meme that many use to define their "politics".