Socialism

[oggbashan]

And that rings true at the ballot box. An uninformed electorate could bring down this great republic. The advanced guard of democratic socialism ( Bernie Sanders, AOC ) are making promises they can't keep. They are playing to the minds of a younger generation that democratic socialism will get them free stuff. This advanced guard fails to enlighten this naive generation the other side of free stuff, who pays for it? It's the responsibility of the media to paint an accurate picture of what democratic socialism really is. We need to educate our electorate comparing both free market capitalism with democratic socialism. Look into Denmark, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and even Canada. Most of these democratic socialist government started as a result of vibrant capitalistic free market society. Look at their tax structure, healthcare system, some of the freedoms they lost and how their people exist today. I'm not going to write 40 + pages of the history of democratic socialism but before you rush to judgement or the ballot box you best know what you're voting for and what you stand to lose. Start with the issue of health care. People need health care but it has to be a blend of what works for everyone. One model does not fit all. ACA did not fit all. Be an informed citizen and know the facts, do your homework, don't let other people do it for you. Vote with confidence not emotion.

There are several very different versions of universal health care, all with different cost implications and a variety of cover. The best allow people to buy elsewhere for services that are slow or not available on the universal system. What is clear is that the US pays more per head for health care than almost every other country that has a universal system. Why? That is the question US citizens should be asking when they consider what US politicians are suggesting.

 

[oggbashan]

Back to the original post.

The figures supporting 'socialism' are startling for the US. But WHAT was the question on the survey?

How a survey is conducted, and how questions are worded has a massive impact on the results. I doubt that people voted for the standard definition of socialism as quoted by several in this thread.

 

[Kantarii]

Back to the original post.

The figures supporting 'socialism' are startling for the US. But WHAT was the question on the survey?

How a survey is conducted, and how questions are worded has a massive impact on the results. I doubt that people voted for the standard definition of socialism as quoted by several in this thread.

Surveys and Polls can be manipulated to convey any message needed to the masses to sway opinion, in my book, ogg.

 

[oggbashan]

Surveys and Polls can be manipulated to convey any message needed to the masses to sway opinion, in my book, ogg.

Exactly. Which is why the report in the first post is very unlikely.

 

[icanhelp1]

There are several very different versions of universal health care, all with different cost implications and a variety of cover. The best allow people to buy elsewhere for services that are slow or not available on the universal system. What is clear is that the US pays more per head for health care than almost every other country that has a universal system. Why? That is the question US citizens should be asking when they consider what US politicians are suggesting.

You're absolutely correct. Part of our problem is providing coverage for people who don't belong here, tort reform, redundant testing for fear of a lawsuit, prescription cost, unneeded testing. What we want is equal healthcare for all no matter what age, a choice of differing plans. Because a system is complex does not mean its ineffective or inefficient. When you put government in charge of who gets what or determines the value of that service or rations care based on age we all lose.

Government can play a role in providing a safety net for the less fortunate and pre existing conditions along with making sure healthcare providers are operating in a socially responsible manner ( laws ). Competition has always worked best in most cases. If we cap what our medical professionals can earn we will lose that pool of resources and the incentives to chose that career field will dwindle and result in shortages and greatly restrict innovation. Shortages mean long wait times and less
opportunity medical attention. Just my humble opinion.

 

[icanhelp1]

Back to the original post.

The figures supporting 'socialism' are startling for the US. But WHAT was the question on the survey?

How a survey is conducted, and how questions are worded has a massive impact on the results. I doubt that people voted for the standard definition of socialism as quoted by several in this thread.

That is sooo true!! You can design a poll to get the answers you want, most polls are bullshit used to skew the facts.

 

[BotanyBoy]

LOL, read through this thread. Even you commented on the variations folk had on it.

There wasn't any conversation in this thread about the differences between liberal, democratic or autocratic socialism and certainly not any that I commented on.

No I commented on the conflation with social democracy and or social liberalism....which is using a market economy (capitalism) to pay for social/public service and is definitively NOT socialism.

If the poll maker wants an accurate poll it is absolutely their responsibility to make sure people are responding to what they want them to respond to...and they tee it up with defining the terms.

Fair enough.

 

[icanhelp1]

There wasn't any conversation in this thread about the differences between liberal, democratic or autocratic socialism and certainly not any that I commented on.

No I commented on the conflation with social democracy and or social liberalism....which is using a market economy (capitalism) to pay for social/public service and is definitively NOT socialism.



Fair enough.

It's amazing how the left uses the government providing public services as an argument for socialism. Twist and turn.

 

[BotanyBoy]

It's amazing how the left uses the government providing public services as an argument for socialism. Twist and turn.

They have to be dishonest otherwise they wouldn't get as far as they have.

 

[icanhelp1]

They have to be dishonest otherwise they wouldn't get as far as they have.

Their not going far. Nadler is probably all done and so goes the frivolous investigations, and schiff is in a corner someplace shitting in his pants or at an airport getting a ticket out of town. Maybe he can hitch a ride with SKY PILOT and shoot for the moon.. Knowing them dumb bastards they couldn't hit a planet.

 

[HisArpy]

Their not going far. Nadler is probably all done and so goes the frivolous investigations, and schiff is in a corner someplace shitting in his pants or at an airport getting a ticket out of town. Maybe he can hitch a ride with SKY PILOT and shoot for the moon.. Knowing them dumb bastards they couldn't hit a planet.

Nadler, Schiff, Schumer, et al are immune from prosecution.

Here's a nifty tidbit - I don't think their staff are also immune. IF that's true, any staff who assisted them in "leaking" or "engaging in acts which would otherwise be illegal except for their Congressional immunity" could be in trouble.

 

[icanhelp1]

Nadler, Schiff, Schumer, et al are immune from prosecution.

Here's a nifty tidbit - I don't think their staff are also immune. IF that's true, any staff who assisted them in "leaking" or "engaging in acts which would otherwise be illegal except for their Congressional immunity" could be in trouble.

No one is immune from prosecution. Remember Anthony Weiner!

 

[BotanyBoy]

No one is immune from prosecution. Remember Anthony Weiner!

Remember Hillary Clinton??

 

[Shelly2inme]

Socialism all over again...

Historically speaking, what happens to societies that repeat past mistakes because they do not learn lessons from history?

Historically speaking, what happens to societies that repeat past mistakes because they do not learn lessons from history?

Historically speaking, what happens to societies that repeat past mistakes because they do not learn lessons from history?

Historically speaking, what happens to societies that repeat past mistakes because they do not learn lessons from history?

Historically speaking, what happens to societies that repeat past mistakes because they do not learn lessons from history?

Did I already ask that question?

Did I already ask that question?

Did I already ask that question?

Did I already ask that question?

Are we stuck in a loop? Somebody should invent history books.

 

[HisArpy]

No one is immune from prosecution. Remember Anthony Weiner!

Yes, they are.

...shall in all Cases, except Treason, Felony and Breach of the Peace, be privileged from Arrest during their attendance at the Session of their Respective Houses, and in going to and from the same; and for any Speech or Debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other Place.

Basically, the only place they can be held liable is before Congress itself if what they do is "engage in speech or debate in either House".

If any Congressman "leaked" information from their official Congressional offices, they could claim it was "speech" in their respective House and thus avoid arrest and/or prosecution.

It would be up to the FBI/DOJ to prove that doing so was a "felony". Something that I'd think is hard to do since in the past Congressmen have read the contents of classified reports on the floor of the Chamber into the Congressional record and gotten away with it. It's not a "felony" if done that specific way. "Leaking" may not fit within this immunity but as far as I know of, that's not been actually litigated/decided. I also suspect it would depend on the specific facts of who/what/when/how as to whether it was a "leak" or "speech or debate".

There's more here and it's interesting to those who are looking for actual information on this. The linky even discusses how staff are protected by the Congressional immunity except the immunity doesn't protect from "third party" crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

 

[icanhelp1]

Yes, they are.



Basically, the only place they can be held liable is before Congress itself if what they do is "engage in speech or debate in either House".

If any Congressman "leaked" information from their official Congressional offices, they could claim it was "speech" in their respective House and thus avoid arrest and/or prosecution.

It would be up to the FBI/DOJ to prove that doing so was a "felony". Something that I'd think is hard to do since in the past Congressmen have read the contents of classified reports on the floor of the Chamber into the Congressional record and gotten away with it. It's not a "felony" if done that specific way. "Leaking" may not fit within this immunity but as far as I know of, that's not been actually litigated/decided. I also suspect it would depend on the specific facts of who/what/when/how as to whether it was a "leak" or "speech or debate".

There's more here and it's interesting to those who are looking for actual information on this. The linky even discusses how staff are protected by the Congressional immunity except the immunity doesn't protect from "third party" crimes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_or_Debate_Clause

That's the only place they can't be held liable is for things they say in speech. If they commit a crime they can be indicted. Hillary had Obama's DOJ in the bag. They're considered the teflon duo. They've gotten away with so much shit it boggles the mind.

 

[FeelgoodSF]

I was born into a capitalistic society. Capitalism has its benefits, but also its detriments. Socialism is not a dirty word.

People who work hard, strive, have particular talents or skill sets, are inventive, and a desire to succeed should like being in a capitalistic system, because it should benefit them. People who are lazy, lack drive, are untalented or unskilled, don't contribute to innovation, and have little initiative would probably prefer living in a socialistic system, because the wealth would be spread more evenly and they get their pro-rata share.

As Americans, we need to determine what we want as a society, not solely for our own personal benefit.

Over the years, inflation has certainly taken its toll and the GNP has increased, but the distribution of wealth has changed dramatically. We used to have a large middle class, but that is being replaced by a shrinking middle class, a greatly increased lower class, and those now at the top who disproportionately "have it all".

As Americans by birthright, all deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If one is born with the proverbial silver spoon in the mouth, that person probably has nothing to worry about, but most aren't in that position. Q: What are the BASIC needs to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? A: Adequate income for food, clothing, and shelter, just for day-to-day survival. Good health - is it a right or a priviledge? A decent education is needed to make a more level playing field and a better potential for getting a decent paying job.

Unskilled labor jobs are shrinking, being replaced by automation and, in the coming years, artificial intelligence. If a person is uneducated/unskilled, that person will be SOL.

I believe in a basic "floor" for the under-skilled and/or the less competent. I believe that those who contribute more to society deserve a bigger slice of the pie. I believe in trying to create a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe in the best of socialism to provide basic American needs: a "living" wage, health care for all as a right, and a good PUBLIC education, perhaps including certain colleges. There will have to be a re-distribution of the wealth, in the form of legislated progressive taxation. A wealthy man may have to forego having a second yacht, but if it means providing housing for 50 poor people, it's a good trade-off.

 

[BotanyBoy]

Socialism is not a dirty word.

But it is one of the most blood soaked ones.

Thanks for the well articulated response though, I do agree with some of it.

I think there are legit arguments for covering basics and providing a certain level of positive liberty, such as housing and food. That however before it could ever be considered seriously is going to absolutely require we get our immigration under control and cut way back. Our rich might be rich but they can't afford to provide for any and all who show up. That's just collective/national/economic suicide. Open borders only work for very libertarian type societies with hyper free capitalistic economies with nothing to lose because everyone is responsible for their own shit...wild wild west style.

I disagree with the progressive tax/wealth redistribution aspects at the federal level. I think everyone should have an equal share of their hide "in the game". It unifies the people when everyone is participating, it divides them when 47% are freeloading.

 

[icanhelp1]

I was born into a capitalistic society. Capitalism has its benefits, but also its detriments. Socialism is not a dirty word.

People who work hard, strive, have particular talents or skill sets, are inventive, and a desire to succeed should like being in a capitalistic system, because it should benefit them. People who are lazy, lack drive, are untalented or unskilled, don't contribute to innovation, and have little initiative would probably prefer living in a socialistic system, because the wealth would be spread more evenly and they get their pro-rata share.

As Americans, we need to determine what we want as a society, not solely for our own personal benefit.

Over the years, inflation has certainly taken its toll and the GNP has increased, but the distribution of wealth has changed dramatically. We used to have a large middle class, but that is being replaced by a shrinking middle class, a greatly increased lower class, and those now at the top who disproportionately "have it all".

As Americans by birthright, all deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. If one is born with the proverbial silver spoon in the mouth, that person probably has nothing to worry about, but most aren't in that position. Q: What are the BASIC needs to achieve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness? A: Adequate income for food, clothing, and shelter, just for day-to-day survival. Good health - is it a right or a priviledge? A decent education is needed to make a more level playing field and a better potential for getting a decent paying job.

Unskilled labor jobs are shrinking, being replaced by automation and, in the coming years, artificial intelligence. If a person is uneducated/unskilled, that person will be SOL.

I believe in a basic "floor" for the under-skilled and/or the less competent. I believe that those who contribute more to society deserve a bigger slice of the pie. I believe in trying to create a level playing field. I believe in capitalism, but I also believe in the best of socialism to provide basic American needs: a "living" wage, health care for all as a right, and a good PUBLIC education, perhaps including certain colleges. There will have to be a re-distribution of the wealth, in the form of legislated progressive taxation. A wealthy man may have to forego having a second yacht, but if it means providing housing for 50 poor people, it's a good trade-off.

I posted this before discussing an informed electorate.

And that rings true at the ballot box. An uninformed electorate could bring down this great republic. The advanced guard of democratic socialism ( Bernie Sanders, AOC ) are making promises they can't keep. They are playing to the minds of a younger generation that democratic socialism will get them free stuff. This advanced guard fails to enlighten this naive generation the other side of free stuff, who pays for it? It's the responsibility of the media to paint an accurate picture of what democratic socialism really is. We need to educate our electorate comparing both free market capitalism with democratic socialism. Look into Denmark, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand and even Canada. Most of these democratic socialist government started as a result of vibrant capitalistic free market society. Look at their tax structure, healthcare system, some of the freedoms they lost and how their people exist today. I'm not going to write 40 + pages of the history of democratic socialism but before you rush to judgement or the ballot box you best know what you're voting for and what you stand to lose. Start with the issue of health care. People need health care but it has to be a blend of what works for everyone. One model does not fit all. ACA did not fit all. Be an informed citizen and know the facts, do your homework, don't let other people do it for you. Vote with confidence not emotion.


I think, before you can make assumptions about a hybrid capitalist/ socialist society you really have to research why people are poor. You have to seperate people who need help through no fault of their own ( sick, too young, elderly ). Then you have the takers, people who game the system or are poor because they choose to be poor and homeless. Then you have millions of people who are here illegally.


Part of our problem with the single payer system is providing coverage for people who don't belong here, tort reform, redundant testing for fear of a lawsuit, prescription cost, unneeded testing. What we want is equal healthcare for all no matter what age, a choice of differing plans. Because a system is complex does not mean its ineffective or inefficient. When you put government in charge of who gets what or determines the value of that service or rations care based on age we all lose.

Government can play a role in providing a safety net for the less fortunate and pre existing conditions along with making sure healthcare providers are operating in a socially responsible manner ( laws ). Competition has always worked best in most cases. If we cap what our medical professionals can earn we will lose that pool of resources and the incentives to chose that career field will dwindle and result in shortages and greatly restrict innovation. Shortages mean long wait times and less
opportunity medical attention. Just my humble opinion.

So let's take education. As a nation we spend per capita more than any country on the planet and yet we stand at a ranking 38. In the last 25 years we dropped from #3 to #38, why do you think that is?

We need to tread carefully with healthcare. Education is broken but not for the reasons most people think.

 

[RobDownSouth]

<snip> What we want is equal healthcare for all no matter what age, a choice of differing plans. Because a system is complex does not mean its ineffective or inefficient. When you put government in charge of who gets what or determines the value of that service or rations care based on age we all lose.

Medicare seems to be doing quite well at keeping the oldest and sickest members of society alive. Expanding Medicare would be a bad thing?

Government can play a role in providing a safety net for the less fortunate and pre existing conditions along with making sure healthcare providers are operating in a socially responsible manner ( laws ). Competition has always worked best in most cases.

That's the way it used to work. It failed miserably. Insurance companies cherry-picked the populace for those in good shape, and dumped the sickest into "high risk pools" that never worked.

At a minimum, we need an insurance system that does not disallow so-called "pre-existing conditions".

 

[icanhelp1]

Medicare seems to be doing quite well at keeping the oldest and sickest members of society alive. Expanding Medicare would be a bad thing?


That's the way it used to work. It failed miserably. Insurance companies cherry-picked the populace for those in good shape, and dumped the sickest into "high risk pools" that never worked.

At a minimum, we need an insurance system that does not disallow so-called "pre-existing conditions".

I would basically expand the role of medicare to provide coverage for pre existing conditions. Let the government provide a safety net. Read my humble opinion in its entirety. We have to control migration.

 

[BotanyBoy]

I would basically expand the role of medicare to provide coverage for pre existing conditions. Let the government provide a safety net. Read my humble opinion in its entirety. We have to control migration.

I think if (D)'s would take immigration control more seriously (R)'s would be more open to social/public services and programs.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I would basically expand the role of medicare to provide coverage for pre existing conditions. Let the government provide a safety net. Read my humble opinion in its entirety. We have to control migration.

I read your humble opinion in its entirety.

I'm not willing to conflate single-payer with opening the doors to droves of undocumented immigrants all seeking medical care.

At this point, I'd be happy with making Medicare available to those with pre-existing conditions.

And when that comes to pass, wouldn't it make sense to offer a chance to "buy in" to anyone who wishes to be covered by Medicare? What's the drawback there, are we denying insurance companies their God-given right to profits if some guy can find cheaper insurance through the government?

 

[BotanyBoy]

I read your humble opinion in its entirety.

I'm not willing to conflate single-payer with opening the doors to droves of undocumented immigrants all seeking medical care.

At this point, I'd be happy with making Medicare available to those with pre-existing conditions.

And when that comes to pass, wouldn't it make sense to offer a chance to "buy in" to anyone who wishes to be covered by Medicare? What's the drawback there, are we denying insurance companies their God-given right to profits if some guy can find cheaper insurance through the government?

Why not skip all that shit, quit fucking with private whatever and just levy x, y and z taxes to open some public HC facilities and leave the private market to it's own affairs??

 

[cowslinger64]

GOP mantra..

http://cdn-webimages.wimages.net/052d508a08089bd8e2367002e09ab1fee56768-v5.jpg?v=3


https://pics.me.me/since-when-did-patriotism-turn-into-fuck-you-i-got-22944352.png