Socialism

[Typical Lax Dad]

yes or no....is the US a socialist govt?

Partially, yes. We have features of both capitalism and socialism. We always have.
University of North Carolina was founded in 1789.
The Pony Express-----socialism for letter carrying---is written in to our Constitution.
It's simple. Can the private industry handle all education and letter carrying? Of course they can. We have FedEx and Princeton and St. Mary's School.
But what did Americans do? We CHOSE socialism, but not exclusively.

At least from my perspective, I do not think that anyone here is arguing what you describe is not "socialism". If you are going to argue pro-socialism and prove others wrong that we are "partly" socialist, then why do you avoid discussing the negative ramifications of socialism....which is what I believe we are trying to actually discuss. We get that you are draining 3 pointers like Curry on the topic of what we do that IS socialism in our country.

Do you have any layups or dunks that explain why we should not go all in, or maybe you are leaning that we should go all in?

That's a fair question, but who on here is arguing "that we should go all in"??

Not even Bernie (who isn't posting on this thread far as we know) could be said to support going "all in".

So, isn't the real question what level of "socialism" is important and necessary within our hybrid system, and when does it become detrimental to the point of being counterproductive?

Note, we DO have some posters on here who seem to believe that simply labelling a policy "socialist" automatically makes it evil. Piercing that belief system is important so that an actually rational discussion of costs and benefits can be had.

The rational discussion is actually interesting.

Which is why I am trying to carve out the pieces where the tipping point is. One could argue, that our deceit spending already shows that the “hybrid” version we practice here in the states demonstrates the challenges of all the socialist programs we already support.

Okay, if the discussion is how much is too much, I'm all for that discussion.

But as a poster above keeps demonstrating, the mere "socialist" aspect is worthy of attack from him...and that's what needs to be challenged. too.

BTW, I'm not sure whether you meant "deceit spending" or "recent spending"?

If you meant "recent", do you mean the massive tax cuts without reductions in fiscal spending in 2017 or perhaps the big giveaways to farmers in 2019 to make up for the costs of the trade war? Or are you going further back too? Fiscal stimulus, auto bailouts etc coming after financial crash?

My view is that the 2017 cuts were really, really dumb during a period of economic strength. Big mistake, huge increase in federal debt. But then, I'm a traditional fiscal conservative.

I do think we're going to need targeted, but massive, spending to get through this current crisis without too much damage. I'd just rather we hadn't already rung up such big debts unnecessarily.

I'm not in favor of Bernie-style spending, perhaps most importantly because he's so cavalier about it. I do think we could make wise investments in social welfare that, over the long term, will more than pay for themselves both in social good and in actual economic ROI. I just want them smart, thought through, etc. Not driven by blind ideology one way or the other.

Much less Red Team vs Blue Team.

+1. I am a big proponent of investing in our people in early childhood education (think head start) and community centers for elementary school age kids. Would put more people on the tax roles in the long run and would put a dent in what we spend as a country on housing prisoners. I would also favor some form of social or military service for kids that graduate from high schools and are not enrolled in trade school or college. Some sort of paid employment could be substituted for mandatory military, community or social service. Society as a whole would benefit.

[MDlaxfan76]

I'm not in favor of Bernie-style spending, perhaps most importantly because he's so cavalier about it. I do think we could make wise investments in social welfare that, over the long term, will more than pay for themselves both in social good and in actual economic ROI. I just want them smart, thought through, etc. Not driven by blind ideology one way or the other.

Much less Red Team vs Blue Team.

Hear, hear.

I'm for the same thing I've been for for 30 years: balanced Federal Budget. If you want to war all over the globe? Great. Pony up and pay for it.

You want free college for all? Great. Pay for it.

That's it. Nice and simple. It leaves ideology out of it.

And EVERYONE pays. No more of this 50% of Americans not paying income tax nonsense. Are we all in this together, or not? Everyone able bodied worker can muck in $100 per year for things that you yourself don't get, no matter how poor.

Tax small businesses the same as big, statutorily.

And for any State that gives out tax breaks to large employers? End all Federal funding to said State. You wanna play the game of handing out money to Google while making small business pay for their share? Knock yourself out. But you don't get to do it using money from other States.

I'm probably less concerned with single year 'balanced budget' than you appear to be suggesting, though I understand the appeal.

I think that some spending is better thought of as an 'investment' with a long tail ROI, not a one year payback.

But I'd like that to be considered consciously and carefully.

[a fan]

I think that some spending is better thought of as an 'investment' with a long tail ROI, not a one year payback.

If I thought Congress was filled with functioning adults who can add and subtract, I'd agree with you.

I think that keeping that tool out of the toolbag (borrowing) would do more good than harm.

[MDlaxfan76]

I think that some spending is better thought of as an 'investment' with a long tail ROI, not a one year payback.

If I thought Congress was filled with functioning adults who can add and subtract, I'd agree with you.

I think that keeping that tool out of the toolbag (borrowing) would do more good than harm.

yes, that's the appeal.

But it ain't gonna happen, so best we can do is work toward "better" discipline...as voters we should reward those who actually do add and subtract and can actually think about "investment" in a rational way.

[youthathletics]

yes or no....is the US a socialist govt?

Partially, yes. We have features of both capitalism and socialism. We always have.
University of North Carolina was founded in 1789.
The Pony Express-----socialism for letter carrying---is written in to our Constitution.
It's simple. Can the private industry handle all education and letter carrying? Of course they can. We have FedEx and Princeton and St. Mary's School.
But what did Americans do? We CHOSE socialism, but not exclusively.

At least from my perspective, I do not think that anyone here is arguing what you describe is not "socialism". If you are going to argue pro-socialism and prove others wrong that we are "partly" socialist, then why do you avoid discussing the negative ramifications of socialism....which is what I believe we are trying to actually discuss. We get that you are draining 3 pointers like Curry on the topic of what we do that IS socialism in our country.

Do you have any layups or dunks that explain why we should not go all in, or maybe you are leaning that we should go all in?

That's a fair question, but who on here is arguing "that we should go all in"??

Not even Bernie (who isn't posting on this thread far as we know) could be said to support going "all in".

So, isn't the real question what level of "socialism" is important and necessary within our hybrid system, and when does it become detrimental to the point of being counterproductive?

Note, we DO have some posters on here who seem to believe that simply labelling a policy "socialist" automatically makes it evil. Piercing that belief system is important so that an actually rational discussion of costs and benefits can be had.

The rational discussion is actually interesting.

Which is why I am trying to carve out the pieces where the tipping point is. One could argue, that our deceit spending already shows that the “hybrid” version we practice here in the states demonstrates the challenges of all the socialist programs we already support.

Okay, if the discussion is how much is too much, I'm all for that discussion.

But as a poster above keeps demonstrating, the mere "socialist" aspect is worthy of attack from him...and that's what needs to be challenged. too.

BTW, I'm not sure whether you meant "deceit spending" or "recent spending"?

If you meant "recent", do you mean the massive tax cuts without reductions in fiscal spending in 2017 or perhaps the big giveaways to farmers in 2019 to make up for the costs of the trade war? Or are you going further back too? Fiscal stimulus, auto bailouts etc coming after financial crash?

My view is that the 2017 cuts were really, really dumb during a period of economic strength. Big mistake, huge increase in federal debt. But then, I'm a traditional fiscal conservative.

I do think we're going to need targeted, but massive, spending to get through this current crisis without too much damage. I'd just rather we hadn't already rung up such big debts unnecessarily.

I'm not in favor of Bernie-style spending, perhaps most importantly because he's so cavalier about it. I do think we could make wise investments in social welfare that, over the long term, will more than pay for themselves both in social good and in actual economic ROI. I just want them smart, thought through, etc. Not driven by blind ideology one way or the other.

Much less Red Team vs Blue Team.

We agree on the spending portion, my comment earlier got auto-corrected on my Phone. .... I meant “deficit” spending. We keep digging deeper and deeper.

And yes, I know I have argued politicians don’t “really” care about our deficit, they just spend spend spend. It’s like some dirty secret kept from us that either the feds/politicians know we are in deep doo-doo OR we actually have stock piles of cash at our disposal if and when we need it.

Our federal deficit/budget is certainly counter intuitively the real world WE live in.

[Typical Lax Dad]

yes or no....is the US a socialist govt?

Partially, yes. We have features of both capitalism and socialism. We always have.
University of North Carolina was founded in 1789.
The Pony Express-----socialism for letter carrying---is written in to our Constitution.
It's simple. Can the private industry handle all education and letter carrying? Of course they can. We have FedEx and Princeton and St. Mary's School.
But what did Americans do? We CHOSE socialism, but not exclusively.

At least from my perspective, I do not think that anyone here is arguing what you describe is not "socialism". If you are going to argue pro-socialism and prove others wrong that we are "partly" socialist, then why do you avoid discussing the negative ramifications of socialism....which is what I believe we are trying to actually discuss. We get that you are draining 3 pointers like Curry on the topic of what we do that IS socialism in our country.

Do you have any layups or dunks that explain why we should not go all in, or maybe you are leaning that we should go all in?

That's a fair question, but who on here is arguing "that we should go all in"??

Not even Bernie (who isn't posting on this thread far as we know) could be said to support going "all in".

So, isn't the real question what level of "socialism" is important and necessary within our hybrid system, and when does it become detrimental to the point of being counterproductive?

Note, we DO have some posters on here who seem to believe that simply labelling a policy "socialist" automatically makes it evil. Piercing that belief system is important so that an actually rational discussion of costs and benefits can be had.

The rational discussion is actually interesting.

Which is why I am trying to carve out the pieces where the tipping point is. One could argue, that our deceit spending already shows that the “hybrid” version we practice here in the states demonstrates the challenges of all the socialist programs we already support.

Okay, if the discussion is how much is too much, I'm all for that discussion.

But as a poster above keeps demonstrating, the mere "socialist" aspect is worthy of attack from him...and that's what needs to be challenged. too.

BTW, I'm not sure whether you meant "deceit spending" or "recent spending"?

If you meant "recent", do you mean the massive tax cuts without reductions in fiscal spending in 2017 or perhaps the big giveaways to farmers in 2019 to make up for the costs of the trade war? Or are you going further back too? Fiscal stimulus, auto bailouts etc coming after financial crash?

My view is that the 2017 cuts were really, really dumb during a period of economic strength. Big mistake, huge increase in federal debt. But then, I'm a traditional fiscal conservative.

I do think we're going to need targeted, but massive, spending to get through this current crisis without too much damage. I'd just rather we hadn't already rung up such big debts unnecessarily.

I'm not in favor of Bernie-style spending, perhaps most importantly because he's so cavalier about it. I do think we could make wise investments in social welfare that, over the long term, will more than pay for themselves both in social good and in actual economic ROI. I just want them smart, thought through, etc. Not driven by blind ideology one way or the other.

Much less Red Team vs Blue Team.

We agree on the spending portion, my comment earlier got auto-corrected on my Phone. .... I meant “deficit” spending. We keep digging deeper and deeper.

And yes, I know I have argued politicians don’t “really” care about our deficit, they just spend spend spend. It’s like some dirty secret kept from us that either the feds/politicians know we are in deep doo-doo OR we actually have stock piles of cash at our disposal if and when we need it.

Our federal deficit/budget is certainly counter intuitively the real world WE live in.

It seems Democrats are tax and spend whereas Republicans are borrow and spend. Generically. One pays as they go. The other leaves the tab for someone else. Generically.

[Brooklyn]

It seems Democrats are tax and spend whereas Republicans are borrow and spend. Generically. One pays as they go. The other leaves the tab for someone else. Generically.

With Republicans complaining about debts when the Democrats are in office while the GOP increases the debt when they are in control. Then, all of a sudden, the debt becomes inconsequential in their little minds.

[Brooklyn]

Hmmmm ~ so tRUMP proposes that we relieve the ravages of the present plague crisis with things such as more flexible work hours, paid leave, subsidized health care, government regulation and oversight, etc.

Oh wait! How dare anyone propose SOCIALIST solutions to the problems in our society

[Typical Lax Dad]

How are we going to pay for it?

[Brooklyn]

Trump regime remedies for the Coronavirus crisis:


more bailouts
more subsidies
more regulations
more travel advisories and bans


All of them = Socialism

[youthathletics]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

[foreverlax]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

No difference between corp or individual welfare....I'm just not interested in taking their risk, while they keep the return, for either group.

[CU77]

The bailouts Trump wants are going primarily to the rich. The Republican Senate proposal excludes 22 million people earning $40K/yr or less from ANY help.

[Kismet]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

No difference between corp or individual welfare....I'm just not interested in taking their risk, while they keep the return, for either group.

cannot get more socialist than the Feds acquiring equity stakes in major corporations as part of the response

[Peter Brown]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

No difference between corp or individual welfare....I'm just not interested in taking their risk, while they keep the return, for either group.

cannot get more socialist than the Feds acquiring equity stakes in major corporations as part of the response

Actually it can.

When genius bureaucrats sit on boards, run companies, or begin to allocate resources and production according to their whims, that would be actual socialism. For example, asking production factories to make masks is not socialism; forcing production factories to do so is. Ironically, good leadership wouldn't even need it. Good leadership would bring together factory owners, supply chain contributors, and bank CEO's and get them to sign up. And voila, no problem.

And before you socialist yokels say WW2!, FDR negotiated a sense of partnership with private enterprise rather than simply imposing the government's will. Antitrust ended. Roosevelt brought in dozens of top business executives as "dollar-a-year" men to help run the government commissions so that businesses didn't feel the government was simply telling them what to do. He allowed business to realize profits. He used government to create markets and to help business set up new plants and equipment, which business often leased and later bought cheaply after the war.

[Brooklyn]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

almost all of that money is going to the victimized, underprivileged, oh woe-is-me corporate capitalists ---- that's what makes you "principled" righties so happy

[youthathletics]

Yep....Trump is really a lefty, that should make you happy and love him.

almost all of that money is going to the victimized, underprivileged, oh woe-is-me corporate capitalists ---- that's what makes you "principled" righties so happy

Oh like the farmers? Your doctorate you brag about....it aint so good.

[Brooklyn]

Oh like the farmers? Your doctorate you brag about....it aint so good.

Farmers - they vote for the party that screws them. Geniuses like you.

[youthathletics]

Oh like the farmers? Your doctorate you brag about....it aint so good.

Farmers - they vote for the party that screws them. Geniuses like you.

You are making my point even more crystal.....Keep digging.

[Brooklyn]

You are making my point even more crystal.....Keep digging.

Yeah right. You Republicans are hell bent on making this a Third World country and you may well get your wish sooner than you expect. Your hero the Dump complains about inheriting a flawed system but it is one that he gutted and rendered it as useless as it became. The commonwealth envisioned by our Founding Fathers now becomes a plutocratic oligarchy and the well being of the country degenerates.

MAGA dreams turn into a Tea Bagging Paradise thanks to Dump and his disciples.