Socialist nightmare?

[Coreece 190]

10 minutes ago, Skwrl said:

23 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Much like comparing the U.S to Norway. . .

Hmmm, I wonder which country would be the orange?

One literally can compare *any* two counties with one another.  On any objective metric, you can do side by side comparisons.

The differences between political systems and economic systems don’t work that way.  One is about how assets and resources are allocated and used.  The other is about who decides what policies the counties will adopt.  There’s overlap (“what are our policies on how the market will work?”) but there are lots of parts that don’t overlap, as well.  

So... no  

I think you can draw more meaningful conclusions from comparing apples and oranges than comparing Norway and the U.S.

Edited June 29, 2019 by Coreece

[billvon 2,426]

1 hour ago, Coreece said:

I think you can draw more meaningful conclusions from comparing apples and oranges than comparing Norway and the U.S.

I've been to Norway (and Finland, but not Sweden yet.)  And I have a good friend of mine from Denmark.  And by and large the people there, and their view of government, is far more like the views of the people of the US than it is different.

[airdvr 198]

 

[wmw999 2,146]

Fine. And according to US News & World Report's country rankings (https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countries/overall-rankings), it's 2 places better than the US (while that socialist nightmare Canada is #3, right behind Switzerland and Japan). 

Every country has its problems; #3 Japan has a very high suicide and overwork rate. #1 Switzerland has a very high cost of living. A libertarian pundit is no more an unbiased viewpoint than is Rachel Maddow's. 

Wendy P.

Edited June 29, 2019 by wmw999

[kallend 1,644]

The issue, of course, is that right wingers use one definition of "socialist" when it suits them, and a different deviation when that suits them.  "Socialist" and "socialism" are just used as scary words to influence the poorly educated base. 

We even see that intellectual dishonesty in this thread.

[kallend 1,644]

Nobody  I know wants government ownership of the means of production, which is what socialism used to mean. Most liberals  are, instead, what Europeans would call “social democrats”: advocates of a private-sector-driven economy, but with a stronger social safety net, enhanced bargaining power for workers and tighter regulation of corporate malfeasance. Facebook memes (you've all seen them) suggesting that Venezuela is the inevitable consequence of reducing income inequality and improving public education and healthcare are simply dishonest. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

1 hour ago, kallend said:

"Socialist" and "socialism" are just used as scary words to influence the poorly educated base. 

Hi John,

And does seem to be working quite well.

Jerry Baumchen

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

2 hours ago, kallend said:

The issue, of course, is that right wingers use one definition of "socialist" when it suits them, and a different deviation when that suits them.  "Socialist" and "socialism" are just used as scary words to influence the poorly educated base. 

We even see that intellectual dishonesty in this thread.

Of course.

Bigun says (in the other thread, I think) that he's 'been to socialist countries' and then names China, Cuba & Viet Nam. 
Those aren't socialist, they are communist. Actually, they're totalitarian dictatorships. 

He also refuses to acknowledge that most of Scandanavia is socialist. Very high taxes, very comprehensive government social programs.

As I pointed out somewhere, there's a lot of 'socialist' stuff going on in the US. One more example is public schools. Everyone pays taxes so that the kids can get educated. Since I don't have any kids, why should I have to pay? Well, because uneducated masses tend to cause problems.

 

But do you want to know what 'socialism' really means?

 

Quote

...that is the patented trademark of the special interest lobbies. Socialism is a scare word they have hurled at every advance the people have made in the last 20 years.

Socialism is what they called public power.

Socialism is what they called social security.

Socialism is what they called farm price supports.

Socialism is what they called bank deposit insurance.

Socialism is what they called the growth of free and independent labor organizations.

Socialism is their name for almost anything that helps all the people.

When the Republican candidate inscribes the slogan “Down With Socialism” on the banner of his “great crusade,” that is really not what he means at all.

What he really means is, “Down with Progress ...

This actually popped up on my FB feed today. It's attributed to Harry Truman.

And that seems to be correct:
https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/truman-socialism-scare-word/

[BIGUN 1,069]

12 hours ago, Skwrl said:

You’re talking apples and oranges. 

I can see where it might be confusing to you. 

[BIGUN 1,069]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

Bigun says (in the other thread, I think) that he's 'been to socialist countries' and then names China, Cuba & Viet Nam. 
Those aren't socialist, they are communist. Actually, they're totalitarian dictatorships. 

It was in this thread and you are commingling points that I was trying to make. What I said was the, "semi-presidential representative democratic republic" of Portugal as your go-to example demonstrates a true lack of political and socio-economic understanding. You are placing that "look a good thing" right up their with the same forms of government as Russia, China, Syria, Palestine, etc".   

Within the semi-presidential system: there are two sub-types. Look it up and you will find that one of them is the president-parliamentary system. And, I was addressing the fallacy of what was presented to me in the previous thread.  I know it can be difficult now that there is no longer a "in reply to" function - but, it was the post right above mine. SkyDekker threw out some silliness about the semi-presidential system and pointed to Portugal.

Edited June 30, 2019 by BIGUN

[BIGUN 1,069]

6 hours ago, wolfriverjoe said:

He also refuses to acknowledge that most of Scandanavia is socialist. Very high taxes, very comprehensive government social programs.

You simply refuse to acknowledge that it's not. 

 

Quote

 

Social Democracy Is Not Democratic Socialism

In the Scandinavian countries, like all other developed nations, the means of production are primarily owned by private individuals, not the community or the government, and resources are allocated to their respective uses by the market, not government or community planning.

While it is true that the Scandinavian countries provide things like a generous social safety net and universal health care, an extensive welfare state is not the same thing as socialism. What Sanders and his supporters confuse as socialism is actually social democracy, a system in which the government aims to promote the public welfare through heavy taxation and spending, within the framework of a capitalist economy. This is what the Scandinavians practice.

In response to Americans frequently referring to his country as socialist, the prime minister of Denmark recently remarked in a lecture at Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government,

I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy.

 

https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-of-scandinavian-socialism/

 

[airdvr 198]

My definition of a socialist society begins and ends with my earnings.  When more of my income goes to taxes than in my pocket I no longer work for myself.

[Skwrl 56]

So,,,  back to my meme (since I understand the difference full well). OK, it’s not socialist.  I actually completely agree, and had agreed from the start.   

How about we adopt some of Nordic welfare state policies? 

It’s funny that you are so hung up on the label that you’re missing the point. 

Oh, and I’ll stand by my statement that socialism can overlap with democracy or authoritarianism (just like free markets can overlap with democracies or authoritarianism), and in both cases vice versa, because one is political theory and the other is economic theory. Sorry if that’s too nuanced, but they are taking about different things. 

Edited June 30, 2019 by Skwrl

[BIGUN 1,069]

4 hours ago, Skwrl said:

socialism can overlap with democracy or authoritarianism

We are not talking about different things. That is called - democratic socialist. While that may be your choice - please understand that is what those of us on the right wish not to happen. And personally; I hope the democratic party continues down that path.  .  

Edited June 30, 2019 by BIGUN

[BIGUN 1,069]

3 hours ago, airdvr said:

When more of my income goes to taxes than in my pocket I no longer work for myself.

Welcome to the Republican Party. 

[wmw999 2,146]

How many of the things that your taxes are paying for benefit you? Roads? Emergency rooms (even if your insurance doesn't pay them, it's useful to have them there waiting). Police? Military? An educated population?

That's the problem; no one wants their taxes to pay for others' bad decisions (me neither), but I sure benefit from a lot of what the government provides. That's partly why I moved to Massachusetts, a notoriously high-tax state. But here, I have access, close by, to lots of stuff that I use or might use: freeway, trains, bus service, two medical systems, colleges with the cultural and educational benefits they have, good building standards. Yeah, there's bad with good, but there's a reason why I didn't move to far lower-overhead New Hampshire (where we actually already have a family summer home, so it would have been a no-brainer in some ways, especially since it would have reduced our real estate taxes on the summer home in a few years). But we get more here; we pay more, but we get more of what we want.

That's the tradeoff. Where I am, I don't benefit personally as much from border enforcement or the military, but such is life. 

Wendy P.

[airdvr 198]

I’m not saying I don’t want to pay taxes.  In a civilized society it’s necessary.  But no more than 49%.  After that you’ve lost me. 

[billvon 2,426]

6 hours ago, BIGUN said:

We are not talking about different things. That is called - democratic socialist. While that may be your choice - please understand that is what those of us on the right wish not to happen. And personally; I hope the democratic party continues down that path.  .  

Quick summary:

1: Norway is socialist democracy and they're doing great.

2:  They're not socialist! They are capitalist countries with strong welfare programs.

1: Then let's adopt those policies.

2: NO!  THAT'S DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM!

[billvon 2,426]

4 hours ago, airdvr said:

I’m not saying I don’t want to pay taxes.  In a civilized society it’s necessary.  But no more than 49%.  After that you’ve lost me. 

That's fine.  Then increase taxes and reduce the number of wars, F-35's and hundred billion dollar walls until expenditures match income.

[BIGUN 1,069]

18 minutes ago, billvon said:

Then increase taxes and reduce the number of wars

I don't think we'd need to increase taxes if all wars would stop. Given that we spend more than the next seven countries combined on defense - just stopping war would pay for it all. https://www.pgpf.org/chart-archive/0053_defense-comparison

"WAR - what is it good for?" 

"Say it again."

[BIGUN 1,069]

27 minutes ago, billvon said:

Quick summary:

1: Norway is socialist democracy and they're doing great.

2:  They're not socialist! They are capitalist countries with strong welfare programs.

1: Then let's adopt those policies.

2: NO!  THAT'S DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM!

Cute. Differing subpoints woven together to make an irrelevant point. Welcome to Speaker's Corner.   

[wolfriverjoe 1,351]

11 minutes ago, BIGUN said:

Cute. Differing subpoints woven together to make an irrelevant point. Welcome to Speaker's Corner.   

That seems to represent your argument fairly well.

You want the support for the firefighters and cops. That is socialism. 

You don't support Jon Stewart because he's a socialist.

The Scandanavian countries have long been held up as examples of democratic socialism. Both by supporters and detractors of socialism*

You claim to want capitalism, and not have socialism make inroads into this country. 

Yet we have programs that are pretty strongly socialist in their nature. 

Do you want 'fully capitalistic' medical care? Things like Epi-pens at $600. Drug companies colluding to increase prices (and profits). Insurance based purely on how much the company has to pay out (which would make disability coverage for those firefighters & cops in New York cost more than any of them could ever afford).
Is that what you want? I really don't think so (yes, it's somewhat of a 'gotcha' question). 

I certainly don't want that. 
There are some things that work better with government control. There are some things that work better in the free market.

Look how messed up health care and health insurance is here in the US. Just about every other democratic country in the entire world has adopted 'socialized medicine'. To a large degree, it's government run, single payer. Very similar in many respects to Medicare here in the US, but for everyone not just old people. We came pretty close during the Carter administration (yes, 40 years ago) to having something like that implemented, but Ted Kennedy had a bug up his ass about Carter beating him for the nomination and tanked it.  Most of the other countries have had it for decades.
NONE OF THEM have chosen to abandon it and go back to the 'old ways'. 

One of the problems is the word itself. 

It has been taken to mean total government control. That misunderstanding has been perpetuated by those who want free and unfettered capitalism. And their idiotic followers buy into the 'if it's called 'socialism', it's BAD!!!!!' lie that the conservatives keep spreading. 

[JerryBaumchen 1,061]

1 hour ago, wolfriverjoe said:

NONE OF THEM have chosen to abandon it and go back to the 'old ways'. 

Hi Joe,

Whenever there is a discussion about single-payer health care, I usually ask that person if they would like to get rid of Medicare.  I have yet to find anyone who has said, 'Yes.'

And we should never forget how the R's called Medicare Socialized Medicine, and fought so very hard to stop it.  It was going to be the ruination of this country.

Can you even imagine anyone willing to run on a Get-Rid-of-Medicare platform?  It would be political suicide.

Jerry Baumchen

PS)  Personally, I have a good health care plan. I would prefer a program of single payer but those who want to could keep their private plans; Door #1 or Door #2, take your choice.

[airdvr 198]

On 6/30/2019 at 4:17 PM, billvon said:

That's fine.  Then increase taxes and reduce the number of wars, F-35's and hundred billion dollar walls until expenditures match income.

Agreed...as long as we make an equal amount of reductions elsewhere.  I'm tired of being the world's police force.  I see other countries that are clean and modern and i think "that's because they don't spend money on wars and defense."

[turtlespeed 212]

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Agreed...as long as we make an equal amount of reductions elsewhere.  I'm tired of being the world's police force.  I see other countries that are clean and modern and i think "that's because they don't spend money on wars and defense."

 

1 hour ago, airdvr said:

Agreed...as long as we make an equal amount of reductions elsewhere.  I'm tired of being the world's police force.  I see other countries that are clean and modern and i think "that's because they don't spend money on wars and defense."

Why would you need to increase taxes?

Just defund the military.