When republicans shout "small government" what does it mean?

I never heard the term socialism applied to either party prior to the appearance of Bernie Sanders. He referred to his philosophy as democratic socialism - something that doesn't exist anywhere. All socialist economies operate under authoritarian governments. They can't survive any other way.

Bernie is not a socialist of any sort. He is a supporter of heavy government social spending. But the terminology he chose to use caused the mis-aimed terminology to be picked up and used by the opposition. It all started another inter partisan issue. Not worth any concern on anybody's part.

 

I've been following politics since LBJ, when I was 14. I've heard republicans calling dems socialist since at least then. But it goes back farther than that.

They called FDR a socialist.

https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-socialism-20190213-story.html

Goldwater, McCain, etc., called dems 'socialist'
https://www.newsweek.com/goldwater-mccain-called-dems-socialist-92065

And, since Trump, republicans have been calling dems socialist all over the place, especially since the advent of 'democratic socalism' by Bernie Sanders, who, as you have noted, is not a true socialist.
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/25/9058...mocrats-as-socialists-heres-what-socialism-is

All Bernie has done as accepted the moniker than Republicans have been calling democrats for years.

He for all intents and purposes, has admitted, okay, you've been calling us socialist, and according to your new definition, the one that you've been using on us since FDR, we are socialists. There hardly has been a day on this forum someone hasn't accused dems of being socialist/communist/marxist, etc.

And, so, when democratic socialists point to socialist programs like medicare that work, what do republicans say?

"that's not socialism".

You know I say?

Make up your ****ing mind on what the term means, and ALL republicans agree on it.

Otherwise, government sponsored programs is socialist, and that is according to REPUBLICAN's DEFINITION

I'll accept 'socialism is public ownership of means of production' as the only definition, IF and WHEN republicans get their **** together and agree on the definition.

 

So you disagree with my post. That's fine. But having democrats call themselves socialists is nonsensical. Apparently you agree with that. Heavy government social spending is not socialism. It is just bad government.

 

I miss Ron Paul.

 

GARBAGE. True conservatives DEMAND that government forcibly strip everyone of their rights and pass them out to the greedy, privileged, parasitic rich as their private property. That's because true conservatives are dedicated to one single government policy to the exclusion of all else: the preservation of privilege.

No you don't. You want government to strip everyone else of their rights and give them to you as your private property, and then stop the victims from defending themselves against you when you proceed to enslave them.

Except a conservative's prayers.

Both parties are packed with them, as both are parties of privilege. The Republicans are just more brazen about it.

 

No, collective ownership. That could be public (state) ownership like the Soviet system or voluntary private cooperatives like Mondragon or the Israeli kibbutzim. Some insist that only collective worker ownership constitutes socialism, but that is syndicalism. "Social" means "pertaining to a group or community," not "worker."

 

Well, I must be a lot older than you then, because I remember Goldwater calling Democrats of the George McGovern stripe socialists.

 

No, it is about love of the rich.

Politicians peddle influence. That is thier primary concern. This influence comes I the form laws (or opposing laws) that enable the rich to enrich themselves in a higher, more efficient capacity than they ever could without the influence of government.

It has nothing to do with tax burden. Taxes are irrelevant to the rich, and always will be. The Fed. Insures this.

 

Nuh uh is not a valid argument. Lets start with a big one, heart disease. Do you know the cause?

 

Yes. That is your tax dollar hard at work. You paid to produce those unhealthy foods.

 

I don't believe 'democratic socialism' was the proper term for that movement, I would have called them 'social democrats', because that is what they really are. And, since repubs have been calling dem social programs as 'socialist' fine, but I say to republicans then don't say they are not socialist when they work. You can't have it both ways.

 

Dems seek to make it relevant.

 

In the sense that chemicals introduced in foods have to be approved by the FDA.

Many drugs are the fruition of research conducted at Universities with government grants, that sort of thing.

But, it would be helpful if you gave some specifics.

 

Genetics and the choices one makes.

 

A democrat is in the White House.

 

Very simple actually.

No seatbelt laws, No auto insurers. Maimed and dead people from accidents were the reason the insurance industry lobbied for seatbelt laws.

Now, they may be getting out dated as airbaigs, side rails, etc have made cars less deadly. But, most laws and regulation occur because some corporation wanted to save money, many money, or thwart competition.
And no party is immune from the lobby industry.

So, you've been buffaloed into a false belief.

 

For a country to be a leader in the global world, the people in the country would need to be some of the most educated people in the world.
To compete with the brains and education of those rising in the world status.

The role of the fed education should be guideline type policies and some money for achieving a national uptrend in overall education in the entire country.

But controls on how to achieve world class education is best to States with the implementation at local levels.

But the fed gov't, ought to have staff the understands the latest and greatest in education achievements and tools.

 

The republicans will start explaining to you about smaller government & fiscal responsibility in about 13 days. They will explain it to you, every day, until they get back in power. Then, once again, they will go totally silent on the topic.

 

You already gave an accurate example. Junk food and soft drinks are subsidized. There are many class action lawsuits for damage/death caused by products the FDA deemed "Safe and effective".

 

Sure, there needs to be reforms. How about banning all junk food?

As much as I would like to see it, it's not realistic.

 

Correct. And the concern for the less fortunate will now get the same silence.

 

How about banning all subsidies for junk food? Is there a politician in either party willing to bite the hand that elects them?

 

Is junk food really being subsidized?

Can you provide the evidence, and the nuts and bolts of this.

I'm not doubting you, I'd like to see more specifics of your allegation.

 

Corn.

No long explanation needed.

 

Yes. Corn is an easy example. HFCS sweetens soft drinks and sweet snacks. Corn is also used for animal feed for other subsidized foods like pork, beef, and milk. Most of that $5 value meal is the product of corn.