The "horrors" of Socialism Explained

He was being sarcastic.

 

"Income tax"??? Do you believe income tax is the only type of tax that exists?

As for the rest.... denial is not something I can cure. If you can rebut my arguments, that's different.

 

In 1776 the majority of the country was farming. In fact most of the country were farmers and ranchers or worked in such settings until the 1930's. I would argue that most of the problems in the modern world can be directly related to the growth in government and its increasing involvement in things economic.

 

As kode already pointed out the federal government ran of an excise tax on imports until 1912.

 

we scanners require an eyeroll

 

Growth was necessary and capitalists demanded it's increasing involvement.

 

The "donks" voted today in the House to allow illegal aliens to vote in our elections !!!

What the **** will the donks do next ???

Ballot harvesting ???


Donks, I like that.

Do you get the credit for coining the term donks BaghdadBob ?

 

That is an entirely debatable proposition on both counts. While some growth was necessary, what we have now is way more than enough especially at the federal level.

 

In every country in the world that has a government taxing to build infrastructure and promote the common good with police and fire protection and a military you HAVE SOCIALISM.

 

But why is that? It's because of increased benefits for corporations, increased management needs for corporate functioning, increased subsidies for corporations, and increased management of public policy in order to provide for smooth operation of corporate functions, . . . plus a little more for public programs for the needy. But that is also for the purpose of promoting smooth operation of the capitalist system.

 

Please give us an authoritative definition of socialism. Then I may have additional comments.

 

As far as I can tell the Republicans are in favor of doing away with all of them. After all none of the items on the list actually benefit the rich and face the facts no Republican gives a damn about that general welare crap.

 

And who did you think payed for them?

 

My explanation of true Socialism would be government ownership of the means of production. Obviously that is not what is being pushed by Democratic Socialism, so the debate about "Domecratic Socialism" is purely abouht the size, scope, and role of the federal government.

 

Corporations only need subsidies in the first place because of excessive government regulations and taxation. Government poverty programs don't fix poverty they spread it and make it far more difficult to escape. Compared to the war on poverty the war on drugs has been a sparkling success.

 

Importers and their customers given what was imported mostly the wealthy and compared to what you want in taxes it may as well have been nothing.

 

Wrong.

Go back to step one, and look up the definition of the word "socialism" in a dictionary.

 

You totally distort what socialism is to fit your ideal. You should call your economic system "Puppies." Everybody loves puppies. Socialism is simple: it is the government ownership of all means of production and distribution. Individuals need not apply because an individual has no possibility of deciding what to produce or do. Medicare and Social Security are not socialism. Public education is not socialism; if it was there would be no private schools or home schooling. Governments can bestow social benefits but that does not make it socialism. There was no socialism in the constitution, with the possible exception, depending on how it is defined, the post office (actually post roads). Private property hardly fits in socialism yet the founders and framers knew that private property -- ownership of individual efforts and accomplishments -- is the foundation of individual liberty.

 

Not true. It's all in service to capitalism and promoting the smooth running of capitalism. The only alternative is to oppose capitalism and advocate socialism, and not one politician opposes capitalism.

 

"Of course, private property is explicitly protected in the Constitution. As are individual rights. These are integral parts of a Democratic Republic."

Agree. However that first principle is under a relentless attack by an unprincipled extremist faction--the President and the Republican party. "Build that wall" means using the Federal Government to confiscate private property on a massive scale through eminent domain. The proper principled response to a proposal like this is, Mr. President go f*** yourself.

IMO our reality on the ground is a product of our public policy. I don't find the Socialism v. Capitalism debate all that productive (fad rather than fashion) and yes, our practice of Capitalism sucks wind. We'll move forward faster if we identify the issues, identify the specific public policy that lies beneath them (the root of the issue), and propose solutions.
IMO we use labels to avoid that work.

 

Nonsense. There is very little service capitalism actually requires, rule of law and contract enforcement is about it.

 

You mean they made the wealthy pay to maintain government? Damn commies!!!!

 

That's pathetic. There is no comparison to taxes then and now and hell everybody could avoid taxes simply by buying American made.

 

People who support socialism never read the classic books of middle school and high school such as "Animal Farm", "1984", "Fahrenheit 451", etc.

 

You don't understand government then. THEIR JOB is to promote the "success" of the country, and success is in the successful functioning of the economy. So the economy and all that supports, promotes, and protects it comprise the job of government. And all major legislation that affects the economy advances the "cause" of top corporations and capitalism. You can't promote the economy without benefiting the top corporations or providing for their safe and smooth operation.