President Trump Criticizes Socialism in State of the Union

So what? As long as it was legally earned and as the result of voluntary transactions, it's none of your business, though, you are certainly free to vote for someone else.

I agree that most of our conflicts are really class conflicts posing as some other type of conflict, but, you are claiming that a government oligarchy is the solution! The solution is our imposition of our will on our representatives that no longer represent us, but represent themselves and their peers.

The first part I'm fine with, the second part looks like confiscation and I'm completely against that for other than the tasks we specifically list for government to accomplishment in the Constitution.

Again, the first half is fine, the second half is unjust confiscation and we don't support stealing.

The Founders wrote the Declaration of Independence, the Framers wrote the Constitution. The Framers got us off to a good start, and gave us Article V to continue the job. It should not have taken us 75 years to add the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 19th amendment. Similarly, the only reason the Electoral College is diverging from the popular vote is because of large states that control much different minorities and silence them for presidential politics, we should adopt a process that makes it easier for new States to form.

Nearly every State that you guys describe as "Socialist" they quickly assure anyone that asks that, no, they are NOT socialist, they have free markets.

Enough with the platitudes, they are not directed, you are talking about confiscation, and where they will be directed to, is to the benefit of the confiscators. That's why Socialism always fails. Two things motivate people to work, the ability to enrich and better themselves and coercion. You wipe out the first one and all the State has left is coercion.

Nothing is free. You are talking about one group taking it by force and giving it to those they favor.

And, you never answered a very simple question: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE US ECONOMY?

 

I'm not sure what there is to get "wrong" about laughing at Spartacus, Fauxcahontas, Kommie Harris and that Gillibrand moonbat for jumping on the AOC Crazy Train but feel free to entertain us with the explanation that is absent in your little screed there.

 

Strumpet has them all beat just by hugging a flag..

 

Sanders used to praise the USSR, not that big of a leap. Heck, Obama's CIA director voted for the CPUSA, you can't make this stuff up.

 

Back during the Cold War starting around 1968, most liberals were useful idiots of the Kremlin.

Many supported the USSR (knowingly or unknowingly) and were really butt hurt when Reagan won the Cold War.

Now these same liberals are pissed off that the USSR lost the Cold War and they blame "Russia Russia Russia."

Bernie was a big supporter of the former Soviet Union and Obama's CIA director John Brennan voted the CPUSA ticket.

 

That's not near as bad as a $91 trillion Unicorn Socialist tree hug.

 

1. I don't give a wit that Trump's a billionaire. It is of no consequence to me. I don't dislike Trump because he's rich, but because of the kind of man he is. And, I did & will vote for someone else--always.
2. Regarding the bold print. . .I'm NOT suggesting any kind of oligarchy is the solution. I'm simply saying that democratic socialism has some good ideas that deserve consideration, that I believe would help make America a better nation & society to live in. I agree with your last sentence here, but don't know how to overcome the influence & control wealthy donors have over politicians without eliminating their right to donate such large sums.
3. From my perspective, we need to make changes in what we consider innate rights as a citizen of the U.S. There's a growing acceptance of the idea that having access to healthcare should be regarded as a natural right of citizenship. I agree. Other proposals suggest every American should have the right to basic food, housing, & education. Some say every American family has an innate right to have childcare facilities available for working parents in every community. All these are humane considerations that deserve discussion, regardless of the outcome. None of these hurt anyone. Even the rich families would benefit from their acceptance. And, they do NOTHING to threaten ANY of our Constitutional rights.
4. What I mean here isn't having government going into individual businesses & demanding money be taken from them & re-distributed to some specially selected group. I'm suggesting that every business as well as individual who enjoys the rights offered here, also has a responsibility to support those rights thru some mechanism designed to manage & oversee the system wherein those rights are practiced. Government should do exactly what they are doing now, in terms of taxes, except set a level that every individual worker & every business or corporation must meet to sustain the rights (now including national benefits) guaranteed by the government. So, it would be a revised system of taxation maintaining all those new benefits & rights guaranteed by government, but shared by anyone & everyone who is a citizen of the nation.
5. First, thank you for the distinction between our nation's "founders" & "framers." I will remember that. I'll just state for the record, I have become convinced by the elections of 2000 & 2016, that the Electoral College fails to reflect the will of the American voter, and should be abolished. I know it had a purpose in the framer's day, but it's outdated and harmful to the workings of a modern democracy.
6. I have repeatedly posted the differences between socialism & communism on this forum. But the vast majority of Americans don't know the difference. In fact, I'd go so far as to say, most Americans don't know there IS a difference, and they vote their ignorance. But (again), it is communism that doesn't allow free enterprise. True socialist countries DO work with capitalism, and DO encourage personal enrichment. The difference between democratic socialism & capitalism alone, is that socialism sets maximum limits on profits for corporations in order to divert money for the sustenance of social programs open to all citizens, like national healthcare, child care for workers, free education thru college, & guaranteed basic housing, food & income for survival while working thru a temporary setback in life.
7. I don't see the diversion of profit for social programs benefiting every citizen as "confiscation," or stealing. I see it as a way to strengthen a society and a nation by improving the lives of ALL citizens instead of a select, wealthy few. Combining capitalism with democratic socialism is the best way of doing that, and that's why I support that happening.

 

You brought it up.

Actually, your "solutions" require it. In order to implement them, the Administrative State has to control everything. As soon as government starts deciding how much you can make, how much you can keep, they confiscate. Then in order to ensure that everyone gets "what they deserve" the government decides who gets what they confiscate. Human nature being what it is, they will decide that they, their supporters and those they favor get more. And surely at some point they will decide that certain "bad" people who think the wrong way, shouldn't get any, that is how you get gulags. The government that has the power to give you everything you want, also has the power to take everything you have, and in our system, we jealously guard private property rights, exactly to guard against that kind of tyranny, which has been much more prevalent through human history than our personal property rights, free markets, and limited government.

You're assuming you can buy elections. Trump spent half what Hillary did and won. Jeb! spent money like water and came up with what, five ECV votes?

it was designed to prevent a fringe regional candidate from running up her vote totals so high in a few urban areas that she carried a national election and in the last election, it worked perfectly.

No. We vote our private property rights and free markets. You can't implement your "solutions" without confiscation, and in our country WE grant the government that right. I don't know why you assume government workers are anymore virtuous and righteous that anyone else, they are not. I also think that as bad of a job as government does with the tasks we have delegated to government that it's amazing that Socialists think they can sell an expansion of government as the "solution".

Sure, if "enrichment" is happily submitting to confiscation, why, I'm sure they would be quite happy to "allow" that, but, that's the entire problem, we don't live in a society where government controls how much we work, how much we make, government only regulates to ensure that the exercise of my free rights don't infringe on the rights of the person next to me. Essentially, I'm free to swing my arms, but I'm not free to hit you in the nose.

Not interested.

Divert what a dressed up term. That's why Venezuela is starving. Government decided what could be produced, at what price, not the free market, and production stopped, now the people starve without even toilet paper, the females turning tricks to feed their families. Your "cap" followed by "diversion" will be the point where the producer stops producing. And that's where the government turns to coercion as this starts the collapse of society. Only two things drive people to work, coercion or the drive toward enrichment, remove the second and you have only the first, which is why you are actually advocating violence and tyrannical control.

This is how you sell the taking by force, why, you are only taking it because you are going to divert it to more virtuous purposes! And funny thing, it's always the takers, their supporters and those they favor and who have their viewpoints and outlooks that are the most "virtuous". This system is not for us. We are a society with private property, free markets and limited government.

If you can talk the person that owns what you want into giving it to you voluntarily, I have no problem with that, have at it.

And, you again failed to answer the very simple question: WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE US ECONOMY?

 

You strike me as a person who likes to think and consider other viewpoints, even while you honor your own. I read a good book the other day that deals with the tension between our republican and democratic system that has been there since the founding. These are small r and d, not the political parties. And while it doesn't deal with Socialism, it does deal with the need to protect individual rights against encroachment by either a minority or majority.

Its well written, well sourced, and while it deals with these issues from a Judicial outlook (and delves into a lot of case law) I think you might enjoy it.

Our Republican Constitution: Securing the Liberty and Sovereignty of We the People
By Randy E. Barnett

 

IOW "because they can".

 

Thank you for your kind comments & for the book referral. It's interesting, just before opening this post of yours, I had been reading another sent about the same time (same day) from you where you broke down each point & responded in depth. I was thinking between closing that post & opening this one, almost the same thing about you that you commented about me. While we disagree substantially on many points, we both seem to enjoy hearing or reading the thoughts of an alternative view, and learning from it. I was thinking of posting my thanks to you for the thought-provoking exchanges between us. but you beat me to it.

I'll check my local library on your book referral. Thanks.