Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, November 12, 2019

"I don't think that something being ineffective means that it's morally wrong," Georgetown University freshman Kevin Jackson, 18, says of socialism. The word "socialism" has left behind its past of breadlines and beatings and has come to mean something like "kindness" for some students at Georgetown University, The Daily Signal found in campus interviews.

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Many millennials would agree with the positive feelings these university students have for socialism.

According to a new YouGov survey commissioned by the Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation, over 50% of millennials say they are "somewhat likely" to vote for a socialist candidate. Another 20% say they are "extremely likely" to vote for a socialist.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

"Victims of Communism Memorial Foundation". No bias in this survey whatsoever.

#1 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 10:17 AM | Reply

Socialists are the most inclusive and kind people, as long you agree with them.

#2 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-12 10:25 AM | Reply | Funny: 2 | Newsworthy 6

"The word "socialism" has left behind its past of breadlines and beatings and has come to mean something like "kindness" for some students at Georgetown University, The Daily Signal found in campus interviews. "

Cuz there have never been breadline nor beatings in non-socialist nations. What a pile of horse manure.

#3 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-12 10:25 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Socialists are the most inclusive and kind people, as long you agree with them.
#2 | POSTED BY VISITOR_

They're just like conservatives.

#4 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 10:57 AM | Reply

Except for the inclusive and kind part.

#5 | Posted by visitor_ at 2019-11-12 10:58 AM | Reply

What a bunch of stupid kids.

#6 | Posted by Sniper at 2019-11-12 11:03 AM | Reply

--What a bunch of stupid kids.

More like stupid government schools that don't teach them 20th century history and the record of marxist socialism.

#7 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-12 11:13 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It is just pushback on conservatives being extremists.

Socialism is seen as the counterbalance to capitalism.

Conservatives want to deregulate everything and redistribute income upwards in the name of "capitalism". People see that this is "bad" for society so they their support swings in the other direction... "Socialism". When most people talk about "socialism" they are using the modern colloquial definition, not the actual definition.

Really, increased support for "socialism" is just an indictment on how crappy conservatives are at implementing capitalism. Capitalism is a very powerful tool that can vastly increase the productivity of a society. But, it also has its negatives (tendency towards monopoly, corruption, using your "capital" to change the rules in your favor). The problem is that conservatives support capitalism with blind faith, very similar to a religion, that EVERYTHING about capitalism is "good". This has resulted in the negatives of capitalism not being properly curtailed by society (government), so people turn against "capitalism" because of how they see it being misused and see it as "bad".

It is very similar to gun control. We could have common sense gun control where we ensure that people who own guns are responsible and accountable and I believe that we would settle in a happy equilibrium with a vast majority of the country happy with where it stands. But, conservatives are extremist and fight any common sense regulation. So, it will probably end up that instead of finding a happy medium the pendulum is being held back so far right now that once it moves it will swing way over to the other side. Very inefficient and ineffective, but that is what you get when your party gets held hostage by extremists.

#8 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 11:32 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

These Millennials think that classroom Socialism can work in the real world, if they can just implement it the way they learned it.
Hmmm, seems like I've head this theme before.

#9 | Posted by 6thPersona at 2019-11-12 11:37 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Socialism is seen as the counterbalance to capitalism.

Why?

Conservatives want to deregulate everything and redistribute income upwards in the name of "capitalism".

So false I really don't need to read any further to know your diatribe and long post, which I was willing to read is full of incorrect assumptions.

#10 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:41 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It's a damn shame how our schools and universities are turning out kids into absolute snowflakes.

#11 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 11:48 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

They're just like conservatives.

#4 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK AT 2019-11-12 10:57 AM

You must be new here...

#12 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-12 12:01 PM | Reply

Conservative logic:

Socialism is good when it's our taxes going to subsidize corporations, bailout banks, bailout the auto industry, bailout Wall Street, fund wars for billionaires, support farmers losing work due to Trump.

Socialism is bad when it's our taxes going to social security, healthcare, universal basic income, social safety nets.

#13 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 12:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Don't think this means this country is going to elect a "socialist".

Not yet anyway.

#14 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-12 12:46 PM | Reply

Conservative logic:
Socialism is good when it's our taxes going to subsidize corporations, bailout banks, bailout the auto industry, bailout Wall Street, fund wars for billionaires, support farmers losing work due to Trump.
Socialism is bad when it's our taxes going to social security, healthcare, universal basic income, social safety nets.
#13 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Actual conservative logic:

None of what you describe is socialism.

#15 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 01:17 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

It's a damn shame how our schools and universities are turning out kids into absolute snowflakes.

#11 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

Ok, Boomer.

#16 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

None of what you describe is socialism.
#15 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Today's socialism isn't the socialism of the 1940s.

Your old way of thinking will die with you.

#17 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 02:33 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Socialism is seen as the counterbalance to capitalism.

Why?

#10 | POSTED BY ANDREAMACKRIS

It is the other end of the spectrum. Maybe if I said "opposite" instead of "counterbalance" my point would be clearer.

These students think "socialism" is about "inclusivity and kindness" because they have been shown that "capitalism" is the opposite of those things. And to them "socialism" is the opposite of "capitalism". My point is that capitalism doesn't necessarily have to be "exclusive" or "mean", it just seems that way because of that is the consequence of the extremist version of capitalism that conservatives advocate for.

I don't think these students want "actual" socialism. They just want capitalism that is managed effectively.

The sad part is that the pendulum will probably swing over into socialism because of the stupid strategies conservatives use due to their belief in the "purity" of capitalism. For example, remember when conservatives wanted to require an agency to get rid of two regulations for every new one it made? Or their "starve the beast" strategy of government funding? Or the "sequester"? The first implies that it is ALWAYS better to have fewer regulations and doesn't really distinguish between them (instead of making an effort to get rid of outdated or onerous regulations, they think that all regulations are equally bad). The other two imply that all government spending is bad (instead of cutting specific programs that are deemed not worth the cost, you just try to cut "across the board" because you think ALL spending is equally bad).

There IS "good" government spending (there are some things that capitalism does not do well). There ARE "good" regulations (unchecked capitalism inevitably leads to monopolies). But conservatives are too ideologically extreme to accept that. And this is the blowback.

Before you get all high and mighty over other generations thinking that "the opposite of capitalism" is "good", maybe you should look in the mirror and consider how you have made "capitalism" look "bad".

#18 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 02:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Today's socialism isn't the socialism of the 1940s.
Your old way of thinking will die with you.

#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

That is actually EXACTLY the point I was trying to make in my post #8. Maybe I used too many big words (like "modern colloquial definition"). Maybe your explanation with a decreased number of syllables will actually get through to him.

#19 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 02:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#17 Then it's not socialism, it's a buzzword created by the history-ignorant and economics-illiterate.

FYI: The 2019 edition of Merriam Webster says socialism is "any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods". Not the 1940s edition...the current edition. Understand? If someone advocates socialism but claims democratic socialism is different, one of 3 things is true:
1) they're ignorant, and mean something else
2) they're real socialists, and they're lying to you, hoping you're an idiot
3) they don't care either way - they're just trying to cause rifts in the US

#20 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 02:47 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

Maybe your explanation with a decreased number of syllables will actually get through to him.
#19 | POSTED BY GTBRITISHSKULL

I wouldn't hold my breath.

Our DR conservatives were told what socialism meant back in the 1940. They were taught to fear and hate it.

Conservatives can't abide change.

It doesn't matter if words, concepts, and ideologies changed over decades.

They won't accept today's socialism isn't their grandfather's socialism.

#21 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 02:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Read #20 as a clear proof of #21.

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 02:55 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Read #21 as clear proof of #20

#23 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 03:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

I'd wager that these students associate socialism with inclusivity and kindness because whenever they hear policy proposals that are inclusive and kind, some Cold War era nutjob yells "tHaTS SOciaLiSm!1!!" and expects them to have the same automatic negative association that was propagandized into their heads back in the day, as our country got itself involved in international conflicts because "the commies are coming!"

#24 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 03:06 PM | Reply

I guess Mustang will have to take his dictionary with him and start screaming at people that they're all wrong and he's the only one who knows what socialism means. I bet when they're faced with a old guy yelling at them, they'll all see the error of their way.

By the way Mustang. Have you read the definition for "literally" lately?

It's been changed to also mean "figuratively", because so many people were misusing the word. Go ahead. Look it up.

So. You're telling me. The word literally, can also mean figuratively.

But, the word socialism can only mean whatever the fffk you were told it meant 70 years ago?

Conservatives are the worst.

#25 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 03:13 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

If someone advocates socialism but claims democratic socialism is different, one of 3 things is true:
1) they're ignorant, and mean something else

#20 | POSTED BY MUSTANG

Lol... that is EXACTLY the point I am, and the article, and pretty much everyone else is trying to make. Except I am not calling them "ignorant" because I am not elitist like you are and care more about understanding what someone is trying to say than berating them for not using the "dictionary" definition of a word. Did you even read the article????

Clown... I think he MIGHT understand the point we were trying to make now. Reducing the number of syllables looks like it helped.

#26 | Posted by gtbritishskull at 2019-11-12 03:29 PM | Reply

The word literally, can also mean figuratively.

No, it cannot. I don't give a crap how many morons use it incorrectly. Mob stupidity does not make a false thing true. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills even having to explain this to you. Do you get all your "facts" from Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary?

But, the word socialism can only mean whatever the fffk you were told it meant 70 years ago

Because there is only one definition. It is an economic and political theory advocating communal or governmental ownership. Don't believe me. Go read the Democratic Socialists of American website, under "What is Democratic Socialism?": "While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives." The DSA, by the way, backs Bernie, and counts both Bernie and Ocasio-Cortez as members.

Which of the 3 types of people I outlined in #20 are you? Stupid, Lying, or a Shill?

#27 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-12 03:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Come on Mustang, get with the Newspeak. Words don't mean what they mean anymore. How else are they going to keep the masses dazed and confused.

#28 | Posted by Daniel at 2019-11-12 03:39 PM | Reply

No, it cannot. I don't give a crap how many morons use it incorrectly.

Doesn't matter what you believe. It's a fact.

Definition of literally
1 : in a literal sense or manner: such as
a : in a way that uses the ordinary or primary meaning of a term or expression
He took the remark literally.
a word that can be used both literally and figuratively
b "used to emphasize the truth and accuracy of a statement or description
The party was attended by literally hundreds of people.
c : with exact equivalence : with the meaning of each individual word given exactly
The term "Mardi Gras" literally means "Fat Tuesday" in French.
d : in a completely accurate way
a story that is basically true even if not literally true
2 : in effect : VIRTUALLY "used in an exaggerated way to emphasize a statement or description that is not literally true or possible
will literally turn the world upside down to combat cruelty or injustice
www.merriam-webster.com

As for you doubling down on having the only true definition for socialism, the 1940s are calling.

#29 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 03:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Clown

I never took you as a post-modernist.

Socialism has a very precise definition.

I don't understand why you have such a strong affinity for the word that you are trying to make it into something that it isn't.

The way you describe it: Socialism = Government.

No, it doesn't.

Socialism is tied to 18th century political and economic theory spouted by Marx and Engels.

#30 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-12 04:03 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

Jeff,

Millions and millions of people are using the word socialism and describing what they mean by it.

Your choice is to open you mind to what socialism can mean and hear out what future generations want.

Or stick your fingers in your ears and shout at the top of your lungs about no one knowing what socialism meant in the time of Stalin.

It's about as effective as screaming at your kids to turn down that damn rock and roll because it's not real music.

#31 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 04:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Socialism is tied to 18th century political and economic theory spouted by Marx and Engels."

Socialism is tied to 1st century political and economic theory spouted by Jesus.

#32 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:15 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Socialism has a very precise definition.

Oh look, it's
"Marriage means one man ans one woman"
Come to warn us about the dangers of Socialism!

#33 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:16 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Millions and millions of people are using the word socialism and describing what they mean by it.
Your choice is to open you mind to what socialism can mean and hear out what future generations want.

But even the Nordic economies that you are basing your idea of "socialism" don't call it socialism because...wait for it...it isn't:

"Internationally, the left has for decades showcased the Nordic nations as proof that socialism can work not only in theory but also in practice. In his years in the U.S. Senate and through multiple campaigns for president, Bernie Sanders has based much of his political ideas on introducing Nordic-style democratic socialism in the United States.

Inconveniently for fans of the Nordic welfare model, though, Norway's actual economic success rests on its wealth of natural resources. With a population of only 5 million inhabitants, it has abundant natural resources in the form of forestry, mining, fishing, oil, and natural gas. Norway's oil fund is the world's largest sovereign wealth fund, worth around $200,000 per citizen. It wasn't Norway's social democratic economic policies that created the country's wealth. It was nature.

The Nordic countries' social successes predate their high-tax, high-social spending policies. A 2016 paper by the economists Anthony Barnes Atkinson and Jakob Egholt Sogaard shows that most of the progress toward income inequality in Norway and Sweden happened before 1970, at a time when the two countries had low tax regimes and less redistributive policies. Similarly, the Nordic countries' social successes were more pronounced in those years. Relative to the rest of the world, for example, they had a greater advantage in life span and child mortality in 1970 than they do today. In other words, the Nordic model arose after those countries were already prosperous and egalitarian.

Today, Nordic countries are even moving away from socialism. Although they do still have high levels of taxation, they have introduced free market regulation. Numerous state-owned enterprises have been privatized, taxes have been reduced, and the generosity of welfare systems curtailed. In the largest Nordic nation, Sweden, Prime Minister Stefan Lofven, a social democrat, has promised to cut the 5 percent highest marginal tax rate. The reduction, according to numerous studies, may stimulate the economy enough that the cut won't even cause tax revenues to fall. That wouldn't be the case if the Nordic model worked in the way its champions argue."

The Myth of Democratic Socialism

"Polls tell us that 20-somethings today feel better about socialism then they do about capitalism. Among those reclaiming the term are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn in the U.K. and Bernie Sanders in the U.S. To them, socialism doesn't mean a state-controlled system like the one we saw in the old Soviet Union, but the dream of a "democratic socialism" based on the Nordic model. But their dream is based on a big misunderstanding.

Although there are areas"especially in taxes and labor market regulation"where socialist elements still exist in the Nordics, the region is by no means socialist today. In fact, according to the Heritage Foundation's index of economic freedom, Sweden, Norway, Finland and the Netherlands are more capitalist than most of the EU, including France, Spain, Italy and Portugal and Germany."

The Myth of Nordic Socialism

#34 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-12 04:37 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 2

Well one thing that seems abundantly clear is that Americans want "Nordic Socialism" and the only reason we can't have it is because of conservative like RightOCenter, Nullifidian, JeffJ, and the entirety of the GOP.

Now, why they're so against it remains unclear. They're still stuck trying to define the terms.

They stick to arguing the definition because they don't have any arguments why we shouldn't strive for "Nordic Socialism" right here in America.

#35 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:42 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#35

I'm not against it at all, I just realize that it has to be labelled correctly.

Your assigning positions to others game is slipping.

#36 | Posted by Rightocenter at 2019-11-12 04:43 PM | Reply

"I'm not against it at all"

--------.

You're 100% against nationalizing America's oil.

#37 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"In Norway, parents are entitled to 49 weeks of paid parental leave with their full salary or 59 weeks with 80 per cent salary"

You oppose that too, you lying piece of ----.

#38 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 04:48 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I just realize that it has to be labelled correctly.

No it doesn't.

The only people who care about the label are people dead set against it. It's why you need the label. To tell others they're wrong.

No one gives a shht about your label or your opinions about socialism.

People are tired of the rich ransacking the federal government. Giving all our tax money to the themselves and telling the rest of us to fffk off.

The "I got mine" generation is in for a surprise.

#39 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 04:50 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

LOL, glad to see I am still firmly inside Snoofy's encephalitic little head.

#40 | Posted by leftcoastlawyer at 2019-11-12 05:16 PM | Reply

I like to call myself a commie socialist just to get a rise out of right wingers, the same way some voted for Trump to stick it to the liberals. I've met actual communists and socialists, who seem a bit more cultish about it. Just read an illustrated biography of Che Guevara, to understand better why he's a polarizing figure and not simply regarded as an evil. He was a cultish socialist fantasist and brutal and kind of a d!

#41 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 06:34 PM | Reply

I think I pissed off the HTML gods with my sneakily trying to type a word for a male body part, and it cut off the rest of my message.

Anyhow, he wasn't very present for his family, but he stood up to gringo Yankee Imperialist meddling, and he rightfully deserves praise there. But Cuba ended up a one party state, and one party states are undemocratic and wrong. But that's just my gringo Yankee opinion on the matter.

#42 | Posted by hamburglar at 2019-11-12 06:38 PM | Reply

They stick to arguing the definition because they don't have any arguments why we shouldn't strive for "Nordic Socialism" right here in America.

The VAT in Norway is 25%.

Do you think the Dems (or any other party) would get far pushing a 25% Value Added Tax?

#43 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-12 08:39 PM | Reply

"LOL, glad to see I am still firmly inside Snoofy's encephalitic little head.
#40 | POSTED BY LEFTCOASTLAWYER"

Oops, looks like you forget to change handles again, RightOCenter!

Imagine being this much of a coward, that you need multiple accounts here...

#44 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 08:39 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The VAT in Norway is 25%."

Which costs more:
A hypothetical 25% VAT in America.
Or the amount America spends on health care, which is about 20% of GDP.

#45 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 08:45 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

#45

Do you want to answer the question or keep deflecting?

#46 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-12 09:58 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Let me reframe it.

49% of the population has healthcare provided by an employer. Would the benefit from a VAT?

21% of the population uses Medicaid. Would they benefit from a VAT?

14% of the population is using Medicare. Would they benefit from a VAT?

So we're at 84% of the population, covered by healthcare, who would effectively see a 25%-ish increasing in cost of living if a VAT were imposed. Explain to me how you explain to them how this is of benefit to them.

#47 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-12 10:03 PM | Reply

Oops, looks like you forget to change handles again, RightOCenter!.
#44 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

Is that what happened?

I was wondering wtf LCL was referring to.

Why does ROC need a puppet account?

#48 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-12 10:12 PM | Reply

"None of what you describe is socialism."

It absolutely is; it's in the monetary equation. The masses absorbed the losses, so the losses were socialized, by definition.

#49 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-12 10:27 PM | Reply

"The VAT in Norway is 25%."

And what taxes do we have they don't? Excise taxes on tires? Taxes on liquor? Personal property taxes? Real estate taxes?

There are a thousand variants on taxes. "25%" is NOT what we think of as 25%, not without the whole picture. Basically: translation required. According to the OECD, the US has a higher effective overall tax rate than Norway, both in composite effective average and composite effective marginal. stats.oecd.org

Frankly, I'm not sure if that includes the VAT or not. But even if it does, the margins above would be subtracted from the 25% to get the actual number...considerably lower than 25%.

#50 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-12 10:49 PM | Reply

"Why does ROC need a puppet account?"

Same reason he needs a gun.
So he can feel special.

#51 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 11:03 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"So we're at 84% of the population, covered by healthcare, who would effectively see a 25%-ish increasing in cost of living if a VAT were imposed."

Last time you played this game the VAT funded health care. So 49% of the population gets a $10k-ish raise, and so on.

#52 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 11:07 PM | Reply

So 49% of the population gets a $10k-ish raise, and so on.
#52 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

So a 25% VAT is a raise? How does that work? Being that VATs are regressive .....

#53 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-12 11:37 PM | Reply

It works like this: The money that would pay for employee health insurance goes to the employees instead.

#54 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-12 11:58 PM | Reply

It works like this: The money that would pay for employee health insurance goes to the employees instead.

#54 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

#55 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 12:01 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Last time you played this game the VAT funded health care. So 49% of the population gets a $10k-ish raise, and so on."

VATs are used to fund government activities in European countries, healthcare being one of those costs. And you'd have to walk me through your reasoning as to why a VAT would result in a raise. I'm guessing you're thinking it would allow employers to offload some of the cost of healthcare, which they would in turn result in more income available wages. That's likely true, but it's equally likely the money would be used in an activity that benefitted the company itself. Reinvestment, higher dividends, stock buybacks, or something along those lines.

You're making the trickle down argument. I didn't think you believed in trickle down anymore.

#56 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 07:23 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"More like stupid government schools that don't teach them 20th century history and the record of marxist socialism."

And the record of capitalism is so great, half the world starves, people lose their homes, bankers profit immensely from student loan debt.

"Explain to me how you explain to them how this is of benefit to them."

That 25% VAT would allow manufacturers to make things here and pay higher wages instead of importing from China or Mexico. Just like other countries do to protect their workers. The purpose of a VAT is to add value here instead of buying products which have already had value added to them. If we export raw materials and import manufactured goods we are heading to be a third world nation.

#57 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 09:05 AM | Reply

"So. You're telling me. The word literally, can also mean figuratively.
But, the word socialism can only mean whatever the fffk you were told it meant 70 years ago?
Conservatives are the worst."

Yet you appear to be using the term "conservatives" exactly the same way he's using "socialists" and people on RW Talk Radio use "liberals".

#58 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 10:19 AM | Reply

Millions and millions of people are using the word socialism and describing what they mean by it.

They are raping the English language.

stick your fingers in your ears and shout at the top of your lungs about no one knowing what socialism meant in the time of Stalin....

#31 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

The definition of Socialism isn't some relic of the '40's. It was in full practice in the USSR and East Germany up until nearly the end of the 20th century. It's still in practice in places like Cuba, Venezuela, N Korea, etc.

#59 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:34 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

--It was in full practice in the USSR and East Germany up until nearly the end of the 20th century.

Apparently he was born in the late 20th century, and, like a lot of millenials, thinks history started on his birthdate.

#60 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 11:45 AM | Reply

#59

Jeff,

Feel free to read #17 as many times as you need.

#61 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 11:53 AM | Reply

"It's still in practice in places like Cuba, Venezuela, N Korea, etc....and Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Holland, United Kingdom and...United States.

#62 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 11:54 AM | Reply

I'm loving the Socialism that sends me a SS check every month.

#63 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-13 11:55 AM | Reply

I'm loving the Socialism that sends me a SS check every month.

If Jeff and the Republican Party have their way, SS will just become another resource for the rich to waste.

Jeff loves telling me I don't deserve the money that's been taken out of my paycheck every week for the past 24 years of my life.

#64 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:01 PM | Reply

-Jeff loves telling me I don't deserve the money that's been taken out of my paycheck every week for the past 24 years of my life.

probably 3 lies in that statement.

1. Jeff hasn't told you
2. Jeff wouldn't love to tell you
3. you haven't been getting paid every week for the past 24 years.

#65 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:23 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

#65

Why are you commenting?

Everything you've posted lately is worthless.

Seriously, I wanted to point it out the other day. But you were responding to someone else. So I kept my two cents to myself.

Do you have anything to post on the topic of this thread? No?

You saw a comment posted by me and knee jerked?

Pavlov would be proud, or perhaps Freud.

#66 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:30 PM | Reply

"It's still in practice in places like Cuba, Venezuela, N Korea, etc....and Sweden, Germany, France, Denmark, Holland, United Kingdom and...United States".

It's pretty funny that people with such an absurdly broad, all-encompassing definition of "socialism" freak out when anyone says Nazi Germany was socialist.

#67 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 12:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"freak out when anyone says Nazi Germany was socialist."

Calling yourself the National Socialists doesn't necessarily mean you're a socialist. Just like Saddam's Republican Guard weren't necessarily Republicans.

#68 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 12:33 PM | Reply

-You saw a comment lies posted by me and knee jerked responded?

yes

#69 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:34 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Nazi Germany was socialist.
#67 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

It seems you're unable to differentiate between fascism and socialism.

#70 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:36 PM | Reply

You can butter up the term socialism all you want.

But put the word socialist beside a presidential candidate and see what happens.

And watch how the folks who love their socialistic SS & Medicare vote.

#71 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:36 PM | Reply

Clown,

The problem is you are trying to define things that aren't Socialism, like Social Security, as Socialism. Social Security has nothing to do with the government controlling the means of production.

When you reach the age of eligibility you absolutely should be able to collect your SS benefits. Problem is, since nothing is being done about the trajectory of SS you will probably only receive about 70% of what you were promised.

#72 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 12:38 PM | Reply

#69 | POSTED BY EBERLY

So now you're creating, and responding to strawmen?

Whatever helps you pass the time.

#73 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:39 PM | Reply

-It seems you're unable to differentiate between fascism and socialism.

Nulli probably understands the difference between those 2 concepts better than anybody who's ever posted on the DR.

He's demonstrated that countless times.

but you do, accidentally, bring up a good point. 95% of folks can't distinguish between those terms.

#74 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:39 PM | Reply

"you are trying to define things that aren't Socialism, like Social Security, as Socialism."

Don't look now, but Social Security is very much a Socialistic aspect of our capitalistic system. Just look at the fact benefits can begin if a parent dies.

"Problem is, since nothing is being done about the trajectory of SS you will probably only receive about 70% of what you were promised."

The fix has already been proffered: add a point to each side's withholding, and the equation is in balance into perpetuity. I've suggested the change be immediate; the SS Trustees have suggest a larger increase, phased in over a period of time. But we know how to balance the equation, absolutely.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 12:43 PM | Reply

The arguments on both sides in this thread are just dumb. Arguing over the 'true' definition of socialism is kind of like arguing over the 'true' definition of feminism. We all know there were different types and waves of feminism. Some were definitely about hating or emasculating men, but not all. It wouldn't surprise me if, 5 years from now, some "conservative" declares his politics a new form of socialism, and then all the "liberals" will be attacking socialism.

#76 | Posted by sentinel at 2019-11-13 12:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Jeff.

The problem with social security is congress decided they should have the right to spend it on whatever they wanted to.

Now I'm expected to deal with it because a bunch of rich morons in the government wasted what was available.

Perhaps instead of giving money to Israel, spending it on wars in the Middle East and tax cuts for the rich, our government should be held accountable and be forced to act responsibly.

But. You keep voting for Republicans. So. That will never happen.

Because you support the crooks. You support the wars in the Middle East and the tax cuts for the rich. You don't hold congress responsible for wasting social security funds and instead expect Americans to suffer.

Must be nice to be rich Jeff.

Good for you.

#77 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:45 PM | Reply

-but Social Security is very much a Socialistic aspect of our capitalistic system.

that's an awful lot of letters to spell "socialism". or a "socialist".

-since nothing is being done about the trajectory of SS

like what? we've doubled the amount of income subject to SS over the past 20 years or so. IOW, inflation has been applied to the taxes collected.

#78 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:46 PM | Reply

The Nazi state directed industry far more than the Nordic countries, yet the Nords are "socialist" but not the Nazis. It's nuts.

#79 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 12:47 PM | Reply

Nulli probably understands the difference between those 2 concepts
#74 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Thanks, Nulli's mouth piece.

You make a great goon.

#80 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:48 PM | Reply

-Arguing over the 'true' definition of socialism is kind of like arguing over the 'true' definition of feminism.

NW

#81 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:49 PM | Reply

The Nazi state directed industry

Thanks fascism!

#82 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:50 PM | Reply

"that's an awful lot of letters to spell "socialism". or a "socialist". "

To the heart of the matter, when a kid gets SS because a parent has died, is that Socialism or not?

#83 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 12:50 PM | Reply

-You make a great goon.

I'm mean, and I attack people? LOL

You make a great crybaby.

#84 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:51 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#77 I'm far from rich, Clown.

#85 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 12:52 PM | Reply

Arguing over the 'true' definition of socialism is kind of like arguing over the 'true' definition of feminism.

It's all people like Mustang, Jeff and RoLCL have in order to scare people away from a system of government which benefits everyone instead of just the rich.

#86 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:52 PM | Reply

83

I don't know. I understand how it works...I just don't know what to call it....because I don't care.

The only people who do are either hyper-partisans or poly science degreed folks.

#87 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:53 PM | Reply

I'm mean, and I attack people?
#84 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You sure don't offer anything constructive to the discussion.

You're just a dumb goon here to cheerlead your favorite posters.

#88 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 12:54 PM | Reply

88

still crying?

you're just sad because your following Jeff and Nulli around sniffing their Schi%t and trying to hit them with your purse....and you've been slapped for it.

#89 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:57 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"I don't know. I understand how it works...I just don't know what to call it"

Well, I'll give you a hint: society pools its money, and retired folks don't starve after they stop working. Notice any salient word?

#90 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 12:57 PM | Reply

--You're just a dumb goon here to cheerlead your favorite posters.

Ok, millenial.

#91 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 12:58 PM | Reply

90

again, I know how it works.

what are you trying to do here?

#92 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 12:59 PM | Reply

"what are you trying to do here?"

Just have you admit Social Security is, in fact, socialistic. Jeff doesn't seem convinced, neither do you.

#93 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:03 PM | Reply

what are you trying to do here?
#92 | POSTED BY EBERLY

What are you doing here? Do you know what the subject of the thread is?

Or did you just come to fluff Jeff and Nulli?

#94 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:05 PM | Reply

93

okay..if it makes you feel better, then okay...it's socialistic.

But don't hit me with that later.

I support SS. I don't care how you define it or what words you attach to it.

I don't know why either you or Jeff do.

#95 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:06 PM | Reply

-What are you doing here?

2 things.

1. trying to have an adult conversation with Danforth and Jeff
2. swatting a fly

#96 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:07 PM | Reply

1. trying to have an adult conversation with Danforth and Jeff

1. You came to this thread to bicker with me. Read your first few posts on this thread.

2. You aren't able to have an adult conversation with anyone. You're a cheerleader and a dumb goon

#97 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:18 PM | Reply

I support SS. I don't care how you define it or what words you attach to it.
I don't know why either you or Jeff do.
#95 | POSTED BY EBERLY

You fkkking goon.

This thread isn't about social security or how you define it.

Danni brought up social security as a form of American socialism.

#98 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:20 PM | Reply

when a kid gets SS because a parent has died, is that Socialism or not?

#83 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Not.

#99 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:23 PM | Reply

-You fkkking goon.

you poor thing.

#100 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:25 PM | Reply

"Not."

What a riot. Society has taken care of them; if the person died without a child, no ongoing benefits would be paid to the family. The kid didn't put in a dime, and will get more than the parent ever put in.

If that's not a socialistic aspect of the US, I don't know what it.

#101 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:25 PM | Reply

Just have you admit Social Security is, in fact, socialistic. Jeff doesn't seem convinced, neither do you.

#93 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

It doesn't have anything to do with the government controlling the means of production.

I'll never understand why lefties have such a ------ for the word Socialism.

The left used to define their preferred policies under the rubric of "Social Democracy."

I think that is a vague term but that it's vague means it's malleable, which is at least more honest than trying to say: Government = Socialism.

#102 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:26 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-The left used to define their preferred policies under the rubric of "Social Democracy."

well, Warren and Sanders are in the race....nobody can run from the term right now.

It's just partisan name calling to most folks.

#103 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:28 PM | Reply

"It doesn't have anything to do with the government controlling the means of production."

As far as "production" is defined, yes they do. No one else has control, that's for sure.

"I'll never understand why lefties have such a ------ for the word Socialism."

Maybe because some can't even admit Social Security is socialistic.

#104 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:29 PM | Reply

101

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

This is what Gen X and older think of when the word "Socialism" is bandied about. Why some Democrats want to co-opt a term that has negative connotations for a large segment of the voting public makes zero political sense. Republicans used to try and scare voters by claiming their opponents in the Democratic Party are Socialists. Now, they don't even have to. Democrats are proudly claiming that term even though most of what they are pushing, Green New Deal notwithstanding, isn't actually Socialism.

#105 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:30 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I'll never understand why lefties have such a ------ for the word Socialism.

Say the guy desperate to control the narrative.

"Today's socialism isn't the socialism of the 1940s.

Your old way of thinking will die with you."

#17 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

#106 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:31 PM | Reply

Definition of socialism

Is changing.

#107 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:32 PM | Reply

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

Who controls the "means of production" regarding Social Security, if not the government?

#108 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:33 PM | Reply

Is changing.
#107 | POSTED BY CLOWNSHACK

Actually, it isn't. Are you next going to try and parse what the definition of is, is?

#109 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:34 PM | Reply

Who controls the "means of production" regarding Social Security, if not the government?

#108 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Social Security isn't a "means of production." That's like saying welfare and food stamps are "means of production".

That would be like saying any government service is a "means of production", which brings the conversation right back to the circular:

Government = Socialism.

#110 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:36 PM | Reply

108

I don't see services included in the definitions Jeff provided...just "goods".

#111 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:37 PM | Reply

-Social Security isn't a "means of production."

because it's not a "good" but rather a service. (like welfare, food stamps, medicare, medicaid)

has socialism ever been defined or referenced to include services and not just goods?

#112 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:39 PM | Reply

What the Nordic countries have is a more generous welfare state (with the higher levels of taxation, across ALL brackets, to pay for it).

Their economies are Capitalist and are arguably less regulated than the US.

#113 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:39 PM | Reply

"Social Security isn't a "means of production."

Unless you can show some other entity with control, it's socialistic.

"That would be like saying any government service is a "means of production"

If no one else has control, the default is the government.

"Government = Socialism."

Not in all cases; just in cases where clearly no other entity controls.

#114 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:40 PM | Reply

--well, Warren and Sanders are in the race....nobody can run from the term right now.

Especially Sanders. At least Professor Warren had the good sense to call her scheme "Accountable Capitalism."

Sanders, on the other hand, has a self-inflicted wound and would have to spend the entire campaign explaining that he's not a marxian socialist.

#115 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-13 01:40 PM | Reply

"Their economies are Capitalist and are arguably less regulated than the US."

Less regulated? You're joking, right?

#116 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:40 PM | Reply

Das Kapital (which I have not read) goes into great detail about Socialism/Communism.

The Communist Manifesto (which I own and have read) is the Cliff's Notes version.

#117 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 01:41 PM | Reply

-Unless you can show some other entity with control, it's socialistic.

well, I could take welfare and not get a job....or I could get a job and not take welfare. My choice

I could take the money going to SS and put it into an IRA, buy life/disability ins, and not take SS later (if given the option). they could make it my choice.

#118 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:42 PM | Reply

115

which is why the powers that be want us to have this argument.

they know that come election day, anybody on the ballot that has the term "socialism" or "socialist" near their name...is....going....to....lose.

and they know it.

You can't put lipstick on that pig.....

#119 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:45 PM | Reply

Actually, it isn't.
#109 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

It isn't changing?

Then why are you spending so much time reminding people of what the 1940s definition of socialism is?

Perhaps you should join Mustang and go tell all these students they're all wrong. Couple old guys yelling at them will really be effective.

#120 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:46 PM | Reply

-Communism.

see? socialism is just one hop from that word.

You see how hard this is for a candidate that doesn't run from the term?

#121 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:46 PM | Reply

"well, I could take welfare and not get a job....or I could get a job and not take welfare. My choice"

Unemployment and welfare are both socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society. The collective (society) has decided no one should starve. Pure capitalism couldn't give a f^ck.

#122 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:47 PM | Reply

You can't put lipstick on that pig.....
#119 | POSTED BY EBERLY

Your mom discovered that the hard way, little pig.

#123 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:47 PM | Reply

-Unemployment and welfare are both socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society.

can't fit that on a bumper sticker, though.

#124 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:49 PM | Reply

"Unemployment and welfare are both socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society."

"can't fit that on a bumper sticker, though."

I'm not trying to fit it on a bumper. Can it fit in your mind?

#125 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 01:51 PM | Reply

What the Nordic countries have is a more generous welfare state (with the higher levels of taxation, across ALL brackets, to pay for it.)
#113 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You consider education and healthcare to be welfare? I guess in a way.

Regardless. This is what people want when they say they want a socialism.

I know it's not the proper 1940s, Jeff approved definition for socialism.

But it's what people are looking for from our nation.

#126 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:53 PM | Reply

-I'm not trying to fit it on a bumper.

are the democrats? What's the point other than to change people's perception of the term?

you can be right...but you can't sell it.

#127 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 01:55 PM | Reply

Can it fit in your mind?
#125 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

That goon?

Nah. He's only here to cheerlead and troll.

#128 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 01:56 PM | Reply

"you can be right...but you can't sell it."

I'm not trying to sell a damn thing, other than common sense. Meanwhile, Jeff can't even answer what entity controls Social Security.

"What's the point other than to change people's perception of the term?"

To have them realize socialistic aspects of a capitalistic society does NOT make America a bunch of socialists.

#129 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:00 PM | Reply

are the democrats? What's the point other than to change people's perception of the term?

The term has changed. Again. Would help if you figured out what the topic of the thread is.

The only people determined to discuss the definition of the word socialism are Mustang, Jeff, RoC, Nulli, and now you.

The only people who need socialism to mean one unchangeable term are the people who are dead set against it. Even though it isn't what it use to be.

Here's some facts. Socialism, as is used today, by millennials, is referencing Democratic socialism. Or Nordic socialism. Or socialism lite. Or what ever you need to hear it called for you to understand people are tried of the federal government being a system the rich use to line their own pockets. We want our taxes providing for us. Not for billion dollar corporations. Not for global warfare. Not to bribe foreign nations.

Trump's tax cut for himself was the final straw.

This is the breaking point.

#130 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-13 02:06 PM | Reply

-I'm not trying to sell a damn thing, other than common sense

I know.

how's it going? not very well, obviously.

It's impossible to sell.

#131 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 02:12 PM | Reply

-To have them realize socialistic aspects of a capitalistic society does NOT make America a bunch of socialists.

might as well push a thread uphill.

#132 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 02:13 PM | Reply

"how's it going? not very well, obviously."

It's going great for anyone with common sense.

"It's impossible to sell."

Stupid is as stupid remains. I can't force anyone to get the sand out of their ears.

#133 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:29 PM | Reply

"It's impossible to sell."
Stupid is as stupid remains. I can't force anyone to get the sand out of their ears.

#133 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

I believe Ebs is talking about trying to sell Socialism to the American voters.

Gen X and older tend to think of, say, Venezuela when they hear the word Socialism.

I understand the point that Clown has been driving home - that when liberals and progressives use that term they are actually referring to the generous welfare states of Europe and Scandinavia. The problem with politics is perception is reality. If Democrats embrace the word (many have) they risk a huge segment of voters seeing them as a bunch of filthy Commies and will vote accordingly.

Like I said a little ways up-thread - this is really bad politicking.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 02:41 PM | Reply

"If Democrats embrace the word (many have) they risk a huge segment of voters seeing them as a bunch of filthy Commies"

Luckily, you'll correct them, right?

#135 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:49 PM | Reply

Luckily, you'll correct them, right?

#135 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Nope. I've made the case that it's bad politics to embrace the word. It's incumbent upon Democrats to heed such sagely advice.

#136 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 02:51 PM | Reply

"Nope. I've made the case that it's bad politics to embrace the word."

Communist.

#137 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 02:53 PM | Reply

"That 25% VAT would allow manufacturers to make things here and pay higher wages instead of importing from China or Mexico. Just like other countries do to protect their workers. The purpose of a VAT is to add value here instead of buying products which have already had value added to them. If we export raw materials and import manufactured goods we are heading to be a third world nation."

I don't think you understand how this works...

...not even a little bit.

#138 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 02:58 PM | Reply

:-)

#139 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 03:02 PM | Reply

"There are a thousand variants on taxes. "25%" is NOT what we think of as 25%, not without the whole picture. Basically: translation required. According to the OECD, the US has a higher effective overall tax rate than Norway, both in composite effective average and composite effective marginal. stats.oecd.org"

Your reference was citing statistical numbers intended to analyse the relationship between investments and profits. As described, the quantity is synthetic. When it states that the composite rate is 37.5%, it's not saying (according to the definition provided), that the average rate being paid is 37.5%

"The composite Effective Average Tax Rate (EATR) is constructed as a weighted average across finance- and asset-specific EATRs. It is a synthetic tax policy indicator reflecting the average tax contribution a firm makes on an investment project earning above-zero economic profits. This indicator is used to analyse discrete investment decisions between two or more alternative projects (along the extensive margin)."

Google tells me that the personal income tax in Norway is expected to be 39% in 2020. And that, of course, does not include Value Added taxes.

#140 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 03:07 PM | Reply

"And that, of course, does not include Value Added taxes."

But 39% plus a VAT of 25% does NOT equal 64%. The VAT covers other aspects of socialism.

"the personal income tax in Norway is expected to be 39% in 2020"

Marginal, or effective?

#141 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 03:12 PM | Reply

"Unemployment and welfare are both socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society. The collective (society) has decided no one should starve. Pure capitalism couldn't give a f^ck."

What's socialistic about it? And let's not forget that in Socialist Venezuela people are starving at a level never before seen in the US. Ever.

Each and every last program the feeds poor kids, or provides low cost medical care, or housing, or whatever, can be accredited to those workers who have participated in free market capitalism. It's capitalism that provides all these things, and without capitalism, they wouldn't exist. Period.

#142 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 03:14 PM | Reply

"But 39% plus a VAT of 25% does NOT equal 64%. The VAT covers other aspects of socialism."

How much you pay in Value Added taxes is based entirely on your consumption habits. The richest person buying a new TV set is going to pay the same amount in VATs as the poorest.

Marginal, or effective?

The quick search I did only provided an average rate. I don't know why. Maybe it's because they use a flat tax, or there are other factors (such as income or deductions) that alter the effective rate. I went to a few websites, but I don't really understand the nuances, and wasn't quite ready for a deep dive into Norwegian tax policy.

#143 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 03:18 PM | Reply

...they risk a huge segment of voters seeing them as a bunch of filthy Commies

With Trump brown nosing Putin, McConnell holding up election security funding to prevent Russian cyber meddling, and the way Republicans stick up for all these contacts with Russia and a president sucking up to the former head of the Soviet KGB, Republican politicos should be viewed as supporting filthy commies.

#144 | Posted by AMERICANUNITY at 2019-11-13 03:22 PM | Reply

This is an interesting thread imo. It is clear that the academics definition of "socialism" is now far different than the working persons definition. And since there is no 'agreed' upon definition at this point, the whole conversation degrades down to one side accusing the other side of not knowing what they are talking about.

Personally, I am in the school of thought that through common usage, the definitions of most words do 'evolve' over time. I'm not sure if that is a good or bad thing. But it does mean that it helps to make an effort 'keeping up'.

#145 | Posted by moder8 at 2019-11-13 03:28 PM | Reply

-It's going great for anyone with common sense.

we're talking about American voters......on election day.

#146 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 03:29 PM | Reply

-I can't force anyone to get the sand out of their ears.

You say that....but do you really believe that?

Because what I'm seeing is you trying to do exactly that....over and over and over. As though you believe you can "force anyone to get the sand out of their ears."

#147 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 03:30 PM | Reply

"If Democrats embrace the word (many have) they risk a huge segment of voters seeing them as a bunch of filthy Commies and will vote accordingly."

exactly. And I very much want a democrat to win.

#148 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 03:32 PM | Reply

"Each and every last program the feeds poor kids, or provides low cost medical care, or housing, or whatever, can be accredited to those workers who have participated in free market capitalism."

Say what now?

Those are all government programs.

The free market didn't innovate them.

The Legislature Forced Them On Us At Gunpoint (TM).

#149 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 03:57 PM | Reply

"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"

"distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

^
Is exactly the economy we have in America, and it keeps getting more and more unequal.

Ask Danforth about earning $50,000 vs opening dividend checks for $50,000 if you require further clarification.

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-13 04:04 PM | Reply

"As though you believe you can "force anyone to get the sand out of their ears.""

I know I can't. Just let me know when yours finally all spills out.

#151 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 04:21 PM | Reply

"earning $50,000 vs opening dividend checks for $50,000 if you require further clarification."

Someone opening $50,000 in dividend checks from say, McDonalds or Wal-Mart will owe ZERO in federal taxes. Meanwhile, the janitor profiting $50,000 from sweat-of-the-brow labor will owe over $10,000 in federal taxes.

#152 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 04:24 PM | Reply

-I know I can't. Just let me know when yours finally all spills out.

Hold on....you're one who's continually trying to push a square peg in a round hole by trying convince folks to change their attitude about the word socialism.

I agree with you on the terms and the concepts. My issue is that is not my focus.

I'm focused on getting Trump out of office and replacing him with a democrat and trying to sell socialism is nothing but a recipe for LOSING.

That's it.

Don't waste your time chasing Jeff trying to convince him of that and accuse ME of having sand in my ears.

I honestly feel like I'm one of the few people advocating a winning strategy and pointing to HUGE pitfalls that will cost the democrats this next election.

don't be pissed at me unless you actually want Trump to win a second term.

#153 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-13 05:43 PM | Reply

"Hold on....you're one who's continually trying to push a square peg in a round hole by trying convince folks to change their attitude about the word socialism."

Nonsense. All I did was debunk the falsehood that Social Security isn't socialistic.

"and trying to sell socialism"

I'm not trying to SELL anything, I'm trying to point out how even in our capitalistic society, there are a lot of aspects of socialism. Parks, elementary & secondary education, police & fire, libraries, roads...all sociallistic aspects. This has nothing to do with elections, and all to do with an admission of reality.

"don't be pissed at me"

I'm not, nor have I been.

#154 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 05:49 PM | Reply

"Those are all government programs."

Really?

Did the "government" go out and put in a hard days work to earn the money that funds those programs?

Didn't think so.

#155 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 09:11 PM | Reply

"distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done"

Based on the unequal value of the work performed.

If Two basketball players of equal talent (read: value) were being paid different amounts, you'd have a point. But in reality, a player with Lebron Jame's value is going to pull an income of similar value.

And I'm not sure how familiar you are with Marx, but there's a reason you don't study Das Kapital in ECON 101.

#156 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 09:14 PM | Reply

"Parks, elementary & secondary education, police & fire, libraries, roads...all sociallistic aspects. This has nothing to do with elections, and all to do with an admission of reality."

Socialistic?

They're all funded through non-government activity. They exist because taxpayers are willing to fund them.

#157 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 09:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Did the "government" go out and put in a hard days work to earn the money that funds those programs?"

The government doesn't "put in a hard days work", it taxes and spends.

And the point was the free market didn't put in these programs; society, in the form of our government, decided people shouldn't starve to death. Much the same way the government doesn't put in a hard day's work to provide a park, or a library.

#158 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:25 PM | Reply

"Socialistic? They're all funded through non-government activity."

And the taxes collected have been collectively decided to be spent on the collective good. How else would you describe the public school system?

"They exist because taxpayers are willing to fund them."

As do all socialistic activities.

#159 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 09:28 PM | Reply

The government doesn't "put in a hard days work", it taxes and spends.
~Danforth

Then its not Socialistic... its not complicated. Just because you have people contributing taxes doesn't make it socialistic.

#160 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 10:40 PM | Reply

"Just because you have people contributing taxes doesn't make it socialistic."

You're right. But as soon as the collective decides how its going to spend its collective money on a public good, that DOES make it socialistic.

"its not complicated."

Clearly, it's too complicated for you.

#161 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:56 PM | Reply

"Then its not Socialistic."

What a steaming pile of nonsense. Socialistic societies tax and spend, too.

#162 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 10:58 PM | Reply

Danforth,

Do you draw a distinction or difference between "Soclalistic" and "Socialism"?

#163 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:04 PM | Reply

"And the point was the free market didn't put in these programs; society, in the form of our government, decided people shouldn't starve to death. Much the same way the government doesn't put in a hard day's work to provide a park, or a library."

You're wrong. These things exist because of the free market. Even your own statements imply societal support for these efforts...which also imply that without societal support they wouldn't exist.

"As do all socialistic activities."

How many of these same activities are funded in Venezuela, a socialist country that lacks capitalist backing?

#164 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 11:06 PM | Reply

"As do all socialistic activities."

What was the tax policy of the Soviet Union. I googles it, but couldn't find anything?

#165 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-13 11:08 PM | Reply

"These things exist because of the free market"

I never said they didn't. I said they're socialistic aspects of our capitalistic society.

"Do you draw a distinction or difference between "Soclalistic" and "Socialism"?"

Sure. A socialist country governs via socialism. A capitalist country will have socialistic aspects of it: wherever the society decides its collective monies should be spent...and yes, monies harvested via capitalism. But parks, libraries, public schools...all are places where society decided pooling resources for the greater good was a viable idea. That doesn't mean the country has turned to socialism.

#166 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:15 PM | Reply

"What was the tax policy of the Soviet Union."

Tax and spend.

Speaking of...can you identify a single civilization which didn't?

#167 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:17 PM | Reply

"How many of these same activities are funded in Venezuela, a socialist country that lacks capitalist backing?"

Call me crazy, but I'm going to assume Venezuela has parks, roads, fire protection, and police.

#168 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:19 PM | Reply

One other thing about socialism:

Where it works best is where the market doesn't. Parks don't pay for themselves, neither do public schools (at least not up front), nor do libraries.

Another place where socialism would work better than capitalism is health care, mainly because the business model for health care turns the regular business model on its head:

In a regular business, you want to entice clients in. In the health business, you want to educate them to keep out.
In a regular business, you want the client to stay as long as possible, and spend as much as possible. In the health business, you want them out as soon as possible, so you can get to the next patient.
In a regular business, you want them to come back soon. In the health business, the goal is to fix you so you never need them again.

On. Its. Head.

#169 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:27 PM | Reply

Where it works best is where the market doesn't.

FALSE

It works best embedded in Capitalism, they are known as kibbutzim.

#170 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-13 11:39 PM | Reply

"FALSE"

Great. You've proven you can type five letters, all caps.

"It works best embedded in Capitalism"

...in places where the market doesn't work. Do I need to type slower for you?

#171 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-13 11:44 PM | Reply

Parks don't pay for themselves

We pay for a Metro Park access pass every year. The local Metro Park also has fee-based rentals of picnic table canopies. If that is insufficient the rest comes from local taxes.

Please expound on your claim.

#172 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-13 11:52 PM | Reply

"Please expound on your claim."

Okay: you just proved my claim.

"...the rest comes from local taxes."

Exactly. The pass fees just ameliorate some of the costs. You've shown a perfect example where a socialistic aspect of our capitalist system works.

#173 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 12:02 AM | Reply

Danforth,

At this point we are quibbling over "Socialistic" and "Socialism".

The latter is a transitional period between a Capitalist economy and a full centrally-planned economy, which has failed every time it's been implemented. The former is simply "government services" which have far predated Engels and Marx 18th Century theory.

Why try and conflate the 2?

#174 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 12:11 AM | Reply

"...the rest comes from local taxes."

The fact that's the backup proves my point as well. The market would either force the parks to go belly up and close, or increase fees to cover 100% of the costs.

Instead, the locale picks up the rest of the costs, and acts as a fail-safe for the park system; guess what concept of governing that invokes?

#175 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 12:12 AM | Reply

"At this point we are quibbling over "Socialistic" and "Socialism"."

I defined them clearly. No quibble from this end.

"The former is simply "government services""

That's just wordplay. Parks could charge for 100% of their costs, libraries for theirs, and public schools for theirs. Fire and police protection, as well as roads could be made for-profit. The fact governments don't, is they know socialistic aspects work, especially where the markets do not. You don't get to fawn it off by calling it "government services", not when converting to for-profit is an option.

#176 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 12:18 AM | Reply

"Why try and conflate the 2?"

I haven't tried once. I've never mentioned socialism as an overall governing option in this thread.

I'm simply pointing out capitalistic societies have socialistic aspects. Not that it's necessarily good, or bad, it's just a fact. And it works best where it serves the public good, or where markets don't.

#177 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 12:22 AM | Reply

"Those are all government programs."

Really?
Did the "government" go out and put in a hard days work to earn the money that funds those programs?
Didn't think so.
#155 | POSTED BYMADBOMBER"

Let's see... It's only a government program if government foots the bill...

Social Security is not a government program, for example. Neither is Medicare and Medicaid...

Perhaps you'd care to name a government program, then?

#178 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 05:45 AM | Reply

Speaking of...can you identify a single civilization which didn't?"

Yes.

North Koreans don't tax it's citizens.

#179 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 07:11 AM | Reply

And the USSR actually had a regressive tax declined as income increased.

#180 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 07:12 AM | Reply

"Call me crazy, but I'm going to assume Venezuela has parks, roads, fire protection, and police."

In theory they do, as decreed by the socialist government. But without capitalism providing the backing for those things, many of the benefits are currently unfunded.

#181 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 07:14 AM | Reply

"Let's see... It's only a government program if government foots the bill..."

The government never really foots the bill. The government only passes the bills on to the taxpayers, or borrows money in the name of the recipients, the cost of which will be billed to the taxpayers.

#182 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 07:15 AM | Reply

#177 Danforth

OK. I think we are on the same page.

#183 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 07:19 AM | Reply

That's how you warm folks up to "socialism". tell them social security is socialism and make them feel okay about it.

5 minutes later, someone walks in and says "USSR", "Venezuela" and "North Korea".

Now, how do those folks feel about "socialism"?

It's way too easy for the GOP to scare the ---- out of folks over that word. And I'm not narrowing that to just party line GOP voters..plenty of moderates who are vulnerable to that.

and the GOP knows it.

In fact, every time I see a democrat write the word "socialism", RCADE should ban their ass. You need tape over your mouth because every time you speak or write, you're helping Trump.

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 08:59 AM | Reply

183

Are you insane?

Danforth believes he's 75 IQ points smarter than you and has taken the moral high ground on every issue. He's superior to you in every way.....just ask him.

If you both are here today, he'll be ripping your ass over your loving affection of republicans.

He does NOT believe you are EVER on the same page. He's already finished the book and started another one that's too hard for you to read.

#185 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 09:02 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

--#185 | Posted by eberly

You nailed it, but now the self-proclaimed boy genius is going to come along and tell you for the millionth time how he skipped 5 grades of school or something.

#186 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 09:07 AM | Reply

"The government never really foots the bill."

So then why did you deny they were government programs by saying

"Really?
Did the "government" go out and put in a hard days work to earn the money that funds those programs?
Didn't think so."

???

#187 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-14 09:23 AM | Reply

Ebs,

Whilst I agree with all of that, my comment that he and I are on the same page was very narrow. It pertained only to the admission that he wasn't equating what he calls "socialistic" with "Socialism".

His faux self-righteous condescension is well-documented.

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 09:24 AM | Reply

-he wasn't equating what he calls "socialistic" with "Socialism".

and he doesn't have to.

The GOP spin machine will gladly do that for him...and add "socialist" to the list of terms he's not equating.

But I guarantee you all that those words will all mean the same thing to voters come next November.

#189 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 09:26 AM | Reply

"I think we are on the same page."

Cool.

#190 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 09:30 AM | Reply

#189 I agree completely and I've warned several times that Dems are making a big mistake embracing that word. It used to be Democrats could call the GOP 'scare-mongers' when they labeled Democrats as Socialists. Now, Democrats are stupidly doing the GOP's work for them.

#191 | Posted by JeffJ at 2019-11-14 09:32 AM | Reply

--That's how you warm folks up to "socialism". tell them social security is socialism and make them feel okay about it.

That's the Left's plan. Once they get comfortable with "socialism" you can upgrade them to the dominant form of socialism that has been practiced globally since 1917, marxian socialism. Baby steps.

#192 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 09:34 AM | Reply

he wasn't equating what he calls "socialistic" with "Socialism".

Was too, that is the long term implication.

IF he wasn't then the term is meaningless.

Accordingly then Capitalism is "socialistic", people pooling money to do things.

#193 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 09:51 AM | Reply

"His faux self-righteous condescension is well-documented."

Only when folks refuse to admit/accept there are socialistic aspects of EVERY society, capitalistic or not.

And for the unaware, "socialistic aspects" does NOT equal total socialism. For the record, I'm in favor of capitalism, and as MB pointed out upthread, the social programs funded by taxes on a capitalist society. I also believe there are some aspects where "S" works well, mainly the aforementioned, including health care.

#194 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 09:52 AM | Reply

"Was too, that is the long term implication."

Was not. Read my posts closer.

"IF he wasn't then the term is meaningless."

Nonsense.

"Accordingly then Capitalism is "socialistic", people pooling money to do things"

The stupid, it burns.

#195 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 09:53 AM | Reply

-For the record, I'm in favor of capitalism,

You need to call Sanders and Warren and tell them to keep saying that....and nothing else.

#196 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 10:40 AM | Reply

"You need to call Sanders and Warren and tell them to keep saying that....and nothing else.

Good point. Both of them live in East Coast bubbles.

#197 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:43 AM | Reply

"That's the Left's plan. Once they get comfortable with "socialism" you can upgrade them to the dominant form of socialism that has been practiced globally since 1917, marxian socialism. Baby steps."

I'm going to give you more credit than you give yourself, you're too intelligent to even believe your own posts. You conspiracy theories about liberals are ridiculous and would be too embarrassing for any normally intelligent person to post.

#198 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 10:46 AM | Reply

#198 Let me ask you your opinion on something, Danni.

Do you believe that given the opportunity to do so, someone like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez would nationalize an industry like petroleum or agriculture, or a utility like electricity?

#199 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-14 11:27 AM | Reply

--You conspiracy theories about liberals

No conspiracy necessary, just historical knowledge of how the Left constantly pushes the boundaries--call it the Overton window if you like--toward more and more statism and central planning.

#200 | Posted by nullifidian at 2019-11-14 11:36 AM | Reply

"Do you believe that given the opportunity to do so, someone like Sanders or Ocasio-Cortez would nationalize an industry like petroleum or agriculture, or a utility like electricity?"

Yes for electricity but no for petroleum or agriculture though they would force oil companies to start paying for the oil they pump from oil reserves that they don't own. I also don't think that government will ever produce goods like clothes, electronics, cars or houses. But it has been found in many markets that government can produce electricity for less many than private industry and reinvest profits to increase safety and reliability instead of executive salaries and dividends for stock holders.
All this discussion about socialism as if we can't look at other nations and see how well it is working for them. Virtually no bankruptcies happen in Europe due to major illness, not true here, where it is the number one cause of personal bankruptcy. We should not have a system that rewards inefficiency or denial of claims to increase profits which results in death or bankruptcy for patients or their families.

#201 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-14 12:31 PM | Reply

"All this discussion about socialism as if we can't look at other nations and see how well it is working for them."

we can't.

It sounds nice but if you really want to discuss it then we can do it while we celebrate a 2nd term for Trump.

Maybe that's what some here really want....a 5 year discussion about socialism....with zero progress towards it....because Trump will remain president for 2 terms if we discuss it at all.

#202 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 12:38 PM | Reply

"No one talk about anything to improve lives for Americans! Otherwise Trump!!!!"
#IceCold Eberly.

Tell me Eberly. Do you actually believe Trump will lose 2020? I don't.

First, there's the Democratic candidates, they all have an uphill battle which seems to be getting worse everyday.

Then there's the EC, Republicans aren't concerned with the popular vote because they control the EC.

Regardless of whether we discuss socialism or not. Trump has 2020 pretty much in the bag.

#203 | Posted by ClownShack at 2019-11-14 12:55 PM | Reply

203

I forgot..you're a hyperbolist.

I think a moderate dem that keeps their nose clean can beat Trump.

Stay away from the more socialistic policy ideas...which Biden and even Warren have done okay at this point.

Relax...it's early and this is the stage where hyper partisans are frustrated they can't drag the dem candidates far enough to the left.

Rest assured...unless Sanders is the nominee, the dem candidate will run to the middle and focus hard on swing states.

#204 | Posted by eberly at 2019-11-14 01:20 PM | Reply

"Accordingly then Capitalism is "socialistic", people pooling money to do things."

You could argue that modern day corporations are have socialist qualities in that they are collectively owned, and in many times represent the closest example of workers owning the means of production.

To me, that is far more "socialist" than any tax funded program.

#205 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 02:42 PM | Reply

"All this discussion about socialism as if we can't look at other nations and see how well it is working for them."

Like Venezuela? Maybe North Korea?

It seems that for most of the world, Socialism was a lesson learned, rather than a lesson observed, and opted not to go that route.

#206 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 02:45 PM | Reply

"That's the Left's plan. Once they get comfortable with "socialism" you can upgrade them to the dominant form of socialism that has been practiced globally since 1917, Marxian socialism. Baby steps."

Snoofy quoted Marx earlier...stating that he (Marx) had predicted this stage in capitalism. I don't think that Snoofy recognized the irony of that comment, given that Marx viewed class struggle as a global effort, and within that context, Snoofy would be one of the oppressors-the wealthy global elites who live off the sweat and blood of the workers. He 9and others) likely don't see it that way because their position in global society would have shielded them from that reality.

It's an academic point, of course. Marx was dead wrong about almost everything, including the point Snoofy was trying to emphasize.

#207 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 02:50 PM | Reply

"I think a moderate dem that keeps their nose clean can beat Trump."

I will vote for whomever the Dem nominee is...with the possible exception of Sanders. Because he's an economically illiterate moron. And I may even vote for him regardless of that fact. But I would do so knowing that I voted for the Dem candidate closest to being a left-wing Trump.

#208 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 02:53 PM | Reply

"You could argue that modern day corporations are have socialist qualities in that they are collectively owner"

Nonsense. They're each privately owned. "Collective" would be ALL of us.

"in many times represent the closest example of workers owning the means of production."

Yeah, the rare, worker-owned businesses. How many of the Fortune 500 qualify?

"Like Venezuela? Maybe North Korea?"

No, not the entire systems; aspects, like the fact France spends a lower amount of GDP on health costs, covers a much larger percentage of populace, and produces better measurable results. Should we learn from them, or not?

#209 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 02:53 PM | Reply

"Nonsense. They're each privately owned. "Collective" would be ALL of us."

Privately owned by, in many cases, millions of owners.

"Yeah, the rare, worker-owned businesses. How many of the Fortune 500 qualify?"

I'm guessing that most fortune 500 companies have some sort of common stock offering for employees. And even if they didn't, there's nothing to prevent a worker from buying shares in the company they work for.

Very different from the relationship between works in a traded corporation and those working for a sole proprietor or some sort of partnership.

"No, not the entire systems; aspects, like the fact France spends a lower amount of GDP on health costs, covers a much larger percentage of populace, and produces better measurable results. Should we learn from them, or not?"

The first thing we would need to learn is that they're not socialist. Healthcare in France is paid for by the people who use it, partially in the form of taxes, and partially out of pocket.

But yeah, if you were to copy an existing healthcare scheme, France would be a good place to start. Either that or the Netherlands.

#210 | Posted by madbomber at 2019-11-14 03:25 PM | Reply

"Privately owned by, in many cases, millions of owners. "

Which is not the collective, and in each case, a tiny percentage of the collective.

"I'm guessing that most fortune 500 companies have some sort of common stock offering for employees. "

That wasn't my barometer; all-employee owned companies. Interestingly enough, "employee-owned" is where over 50% of the stock is owned by over 50% of the workers. Here are the top 100:
www.nceo.org

"The first thing we would need to learn is that (France is) not socialist."

I never said they were; I cited their health care system, which is most definitely a socialist aspect of a capitalistic society.

"Healthcare in France is paid for by the people who use it"

It's also paid by the people who don't use it.

"if you were to copy an existing healthcare scheme, France would be a good place to start. Either that or the Netherlands."

Exactly. They win the triple crown: cheaper, more universal, and better.

#211 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 03:40 PM | Reply

Yes for electricity but no for petroleum or agriculture though they would force oil companies to start paying for the oil they pump from oil reserves that they don't own.

Then you... like me, Nulli, Jeff, et al...believe that they are truly socialists...using the "old" definition. The nationalization of key industries, key resources, or critical utilities (usually in the name of lower costs, more efficiency, etc) is a necessary feature of a socialist economy.

#212 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-14 10:47 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"The nationalization of key industries, key resources, or critical utilities (usually in the name of lower costs, more efficiency, etc) is a necessary feature of a socialist economy."

And when have Democrats embraced nationalizing industries, resources, or utilities? (And don't say M4A; that just changes the payer)

#213 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 10:56 PM | Reply

And when have Democrats embraced nationalizing industries, resources, or utilities?
~ Danforth

ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ'S GREEN NEW DEAL SHOULD NATIONALIZE UTILITIES
www.occupy.com

Its like you just can't catch a break.

#214 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-14 11:27 PM | Reply

"Its like you just can't catch a break."

No prob: I won't be voting for AOC, and I'm completely against nationalizing any utilities.

Also, from your link: The resolution is just that: a resolution, and not an actual bill.

So...any REAL attempts to do this from the leadership, or are you sticking with obvious pipe dreams?

#215 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-14 11:32 PM | Reply

The resolution is just that: a resolution, and not an actual bill.
#215 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

Moving the goalposts now,

AoC is campaigning with Bernie.....

Here you go ...

Bernie Sanders wants to nationalize at least 30% of the American economy
www.washingtonexaminer.com

Seriously .... you just make up ---- then move the goalposts... its hilarious....

#216 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2019-11-15 12:10 AM | Reply

Why Bernie Sanders and AOC are targeting public housing in the first Green New Deal bill

The $172 billion proposal aims to upgrade 1.2 million units of public housing to curb emissions.

www.vox.com

Bernie Sanders says he'll put AOC in very important' White House role

nypost.com

#217 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-15 12:15 AM | Reply

AOC and Bernie's Green New Deal Aims to Change Our Relationship With Public Housing

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Senator Bernie Sanders unveiled the Green New Deal for Public Housing Act on Thursday. It's the second time they've teamed up on climate legislation, but it's much more ambitious than the climate emergency declaration they introduced over the summer. The new bill that ties together threads to address inequality, job creation, and climate change. In doing so, it looks to right some of the shortsighted aspects of the original FDR-era New Deal that helped shape public housing as it exists today.

earther.gizmodo.com

#218 | Posted by Gal_Tuesday at 2019-11-15 12:20 AM | Reply

>Georgetown University freshman
useless even as an anecdote; xe has little to no real-world experience, wisdom, or awareness of the harms of what xe advocates
>"Socialism means multiple people coming together for the benefit of the most instead of the benefit of those contributing the most"
one wonders if young Darby would be willing to sacrifice in part or whole the mark she earned in one of her classes in order to bolster the grade of one of her loafer fellow classmates. Ackshually, that's not applicable, because her marxist professors give everyone the same passing grade for parroting the received dogma.

That 100 million people were starved, shot, and slaughtered by socialist governments from the 1917 Russian Revolution to the close of the 20th century is a fact that bears little relation to their "socialism."
"I don't think the USSR was a perfect version of socialism," said international politics senior Adam Harrison, 22. "I don't think they truly adhered to socialism or communism."

>no true scotsman fallacy; it isn't socialism when we accidentally butcher tens of millions

>A real socialist never would compel people to do something they disagree with
read Solzhenitsyn.

I'm gonna stop now because this looks like some kind of satire. Then again, most of my millennial peers' political ideas are parodies of themselves, so the documentation thereof by an organization linked to the heritage fund makes me believe this is real.

#219 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 01:02 AM | Reply

"Bernie Sanders wants to nationalize at least 30% of the American economy"

The idiot authors are counting health care, where the payer changes. And you fell for it. No surprise there.

You just can't catch a break, can you?

#220 | Posted by Danforth at 2019-11-15 01:18 AM | Reply

"one wonders if young Darby would be willing to sacrifice in part or whole the mark she earned in one of her classes in order to bolster the grade of one of her loafer fellow classmates."

Knowledge can't be transferred that way, but money can.

Which one do you not have much firsthand experience with, in order to make such a bad comparison?

#221 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-15 01:23 AM | Reply

"ALEXANDRIA OCASIO-CORTEZ'S GREEN NEW DEAL SHOULD NATIONALIZE UTILITIES"

Well if utilities could actually serve the public interest that wouldn't be necessary.

You live in PG&E country. You think the utility is serving the needs of the public, when they defer so much maintenance they announced blackouts will be a normal part of theCalifornia summers for the next decade?

You're a fun drunk, I'll give you that, Andrea, a mattress.

#222 | Posted by snoofy at 2019-11-15 01:26 AM | Reply

>Knowledge can't be transferred that way
The gradepoint transfer is something to which young socialists ought to relate. One puts in a lot of effort deconstructing this-or-that for their marxist professor, while someone else might slack off. Do they both deserve the same mark?

#223 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 01:52 AM | Reply

>parroting received dogma from marxist professors counts as "knowledge"

#224 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 02:10 AM | Reply

silly me; nobody - even in the gulags - swears off their marxism. It was just a mistake!
Read Solzhenitsyn.

#225 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 02:22 AM | Reply

listening to Solzhenitsyn is also an option.
www.youtube.com

#226 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 02:26 AM | Reply

"And so in Moscow they began a systematic search, block by block. Someone had to be arrested everywhere. The slogan was: "We are going to bang our fist on the table so hard that the world will shake with terror!" It was to the Lubyanka, to the Butyrki, that the Black Marias, the passenger cars, the enclosed trucks, the open hansom cabs kept moving, even by day. There was a jam at the gates, a jam in the courtyard. They didn't have time to unload and register those they'd arrested.

Yuuugely inclusive.

#227 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 02:44 AM | Reply


"And even in the fever of epidemic arrests, when people leaving for work said farewell to their families every day, because they could not be certain they would return at night, even then almost no one tried to run away and only in rare cases did people commit suicide. And that was exactly what was required. A submissive sheep is a find for a wolf."
...

"And how we burned in the camps later, thinking: What would things have been like if every security operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would return alive and had to say good-bye to his family? Or if, during periods of mass arrests, as for example in Leningrad, when they arrested a quarter of the entire city, people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had understood they had nothing left to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever else was at hand? After all, you knew ahead of time that those bluecaps were out at night for no good purpose. And you could be sure ahead of time that you'd be cracking the skull of a cutthroat."

#228 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 02:50 AM | Reply

imgur.com

#229 | Posted by berserkone at 2019-11-15 03:02 AM | Reply

Pretending Denmark is similar to the U.S.S.R is what morons do, Bersekone qualifies. I am so over their attempts to frighten us into being against socialized healthcare, Republicans base their arguments on frightening the population while Democrats base our arguments on hope for the future.
Fear vs. hope. I will always choose hope.

#230 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-15 08:48 AM | Reply

">parroting received dogma from marxist professors counts as "knowledge""

While repeating right wing talking points is thoughtful. Riiight!. I would challenge your idiotic assertion that most professors or even a significant minority of them are Marxist. YOu repeat dishonest talking points and pretend you are making a point instead of just making a fool of yourself.

#231 | Posted by danni at 2019-11-15 08:53 AM | Reply

#230/231 Even if you exclude health care, Bernie, AOC and the DSA, who backs Bernie and of which both he and AOC are members, have all stated at some point their willingness to nationalize some resources, utilities and/or industries. If you agree with them, which you seem to do, then arguing the definition of socialism with you is moot - you're a believer. Any further attempt by you to argue an alternative definition makes you a Shill or a Liar.

#232 | Posted by MUSTANG at 2019-11-15 09:48 AM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2019 World Readable

Drudge Retort