Socialism

[Brooklyn]

You clearly don't understand. State subsidized education is not socialism. State subsidized healthcare is socialism. 6ft has a very robust definitional system.

Marxist Ben Franklin founded Philadelphia public hospital with Dr Thomas Bond in the year 1751. 67 years before Marx was born.

What passes for "socialism" today was invented well before Marx & Lenin were born.

[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?

[6ftstick]

You clearly don't understand. State subsidized education is not socialism. State subsidized healthcare is socialism. 6ft has a very robust definitional system.

Marxist Ben Franklin founded Philadelphia public hospital with Dr Thomas Bond in the year 1751. 67 years before Marx was born.

What passes for "socialism" today was invented well before Marx & Lenin were born.

Because revisionists like you continue to manipulate the definition to fit your agenda.

So what your really saying is that The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were Communist manifestos.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You clearly don't understand. State subsidized education is not socialism. State subsidized healthcare is socialism. 6ft has a very robust definitional system.

Marxist Ben Franklin founded Philadelphia public hospital with Dr Thomas Bond in the year 1751. 67 years before Marx was born.

What passes for "socialism" today was invented well before Marx & Lenin were born.

Because revisionists like you continue to manipulate the definition to fit your agenda.

So what your really saying is that The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were Communist manifestos.

“We The People“

“People’s Republic of China”

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

[Brooklyn]

What passes for "socialism" today was invented well before Marx & Lenin were born.

Because revisionists like you continue to manipulate the definition to fit your agenda.

So what your really saying is that The Constitution and the Declaration of Independence were Communist manifestos.

Laughable!

Quite the contrary, it is the delusional right wing that practices revisionism. Marx wasn't even born when Ben Franklin started free medical care or when Jefferson called for it. Nor was Marx around when the Founders called for social security, business regulation, government subsidization of roads, of farms, and of the infrastructure. Today it is so fashionable and politically correct {sic} in the deluded minds of the radical far right to call all this "Marxism" even though he was born decades after many of these things were advocated and put into place by our Founders.

Let's get this settled once and for all boys and girls - it's not Marxism. All these reforms constitute Americanism.

[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.

[a fan]

At least from my perspective, I do not think that anyone here is arguing what you describe is not "socialism".

What thread are you reading? 6ftstick is. Millions of Americans play his game. They think that "if I like it, then that means it's not socialism".

That's not how words work. And they don't want to hear that. I'd wager any amount that you like that University of Alabama graduates don't believe that their alma mater is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of socialism. It doesn't matter if you read the definition of socialism BEFORE you ask them that question. Americans don't want to hear that the government why they have a degree, and a good salary. So they'll deny it.

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.

Are you kidding? Happy to discuss it. There are TONS of negative consequences and market distortions that occur because of socialism. Heck, if you were reading, farfromgeneva just pointed out the distortions that come from the farm bill. I can list negative consequences to socialism and/or subsidies until the cows come home.

The issue at hand, as you know, is that your team----the Republicans------have increased subsidies, handouts, and flat out socialism ever chance they get. And yet they act like they're doing the opposite. Trump is about to give money away to airlines and cruise ship companies. He's already giving billions to farmers for no reason. Do I get a check as a small businessman? Hell no. You are a Republican. So rather than ask a guy who is against giving handouts to favored voters------ask your fellow Republicans on this board as to why you favor handouts and more socialism.

I didn't vote for Trump or the Republicans who are doing this. YOU did. So why don't you tell me why you're supporting Trump's increase of the size of our government by $3 Trillion and counting?

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?

Totally different conversation that we had at the old Water Cooler. That's a question of: where do you draw the line? And what we found, shocker of all shockers, is that those who were against big government----to a person-----want socialism when it benefits them, but not when it benefits others. They're not actually anti-big government. They're anti-anything-doesn't-benefit-them. They want a selfishocracy. Hard pass for me on that.

And the part YOU don't want to hear, is that every time the R's have had a chance----Trump, Bush, McConnnell----they have INCREASED the size of government, increased spending, increased handouts, and increased straight up socialism. Take a look at your local State Universities. The big ones all have Health Care programs....hospitals, research, clinics, etc. Have they expanded, or shrunk in the last 20 years? You know the answer. MORE SOCIALISM. So you tell me: do you want to cut this stuff?

[6ftstick]

At least from my perspective, I do not think that anyone here is arguing what you describe is not "socialism".

What thread are you reading? 6ftstick is. Millions of Americans play his game. They think that "if I like it, then that means it's not socialism".

That's not how words work. And they don't want to hear that. I'd wager any amount that you like that University of Alabama graduates don't believe that their alma mater is the Oxford English Dictionary definition of socialism. It doesn't matter if you read the definition of socialism BEFORE you ask them that question. Americans don't want to hear that the government why they have a degree, and a good salary. So they'll deny it.

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.

Are you kidding? Happy to discuss it. There are TONS of negative consequences and market distortions that occur because of socialism. Heck, if you were reading, farfromgeneva just pointed out the distortions that come from the farm bill. I can list negative consequences to socialism and/or subsidies until the cows come home.

The issue at hand, as you know, is that your team----the Republicans------have increased subsidies, handouts, and flat out socialism ever chance they get. And yet they act like they're doing the opposite. Trump is about to give money away to airlines and cruise ship companies. He's already giving billions to farmers for no reason. Do I get a check as a small businessman? Hell no. You are a Republican. So rather than ask a guy who is against giving handouts to favored voters------ask your fellow Republicans on this board as to why you favor handouts and more socialism.

I didn't vote for Trump or the Republicans who are doing this. YOU did. So why don't you tell me why you're supporting Trump's increase of the size of our government by $3 Trillion and counting?

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?

Totally different conversation that we had at the old Water Cooler. That's a question of: where do you draw the line? And what we found, shocker of all shockers, is that those who were against big government----to a person-----want socialism when it benefits them, but not when it benefits others. They're not actually anti-big government. They're anti-anything-doesn't-benefit-them. They want a selfishocracy. Hard pass for me on that.

And the part YOU don't want to hear, is that every time the R's have had a chance----Trump, Bush, McConnnell----they have INCREASED the size of government, increased spending, increased handouts, and increased straight up socialism. Take a look at your local State Universities. The big ones all have Health Care programs....hospitals, research, clinics, etc. Have they expanded, or shrunk in the last 20 years? You know the answer. MORE SOCIALISM. So you tell me: do you want to cut this stuff?

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

I'm opposed to real socialism and your redefinition of it.

Democrat progressives have shoved HUGE socialist programs down our throats in multiple forms changing the culture to fit their socialist agenda. After 4 decades do you think its remotely possible to extricate ourselves and go back to a culture before Social security medicare and The great Society,

Liberals exist on dependence and they built a government that fosters and enhances that dependency. Why the hell do you think they're for open borders. So a stready stream of dependent people would flood into the country in perpetuity.

[Brooklyn]

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

I'm opposed to real socialism and your redefinition of it.

Democrat progressives have shoved HUGE socialist programs down our throats in multiple forms changing the culture to fit their socialist agenda. After 4 decades do you think its remotely possible to extricate ourselves and go back to a culture before Social security medicare and The great Society,

Liberals exist on dependence and they built a government that fosters and enhances that dependency. Why the hell do you think they're for open borders. So a stready stream of dependent people would flood into the country in perpetuity.

~ huge socialist programs & socialist agenda ~

Military industrial complex - corporate bailouts by the billions - overseas tax shelters into the TRILLIONS.

Nobody is more dependent on the government than the corporate communist welfare queens.

[a fan]

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

I'm opposed to real socialism and your redefinition of it.

Great.

So talk to your Republicans in Congress. I'm sure that McConnell will liquidate the University of Kentucky, and privatize all US roads tomorrow.

You don't get it. Republicans are in charge of---to borrow Trump parlance----sh*thole States that can't pay their own way without handouts and socialism. So they tell voters like you that government is bad with their left hand....and cut massive checks for their home States with their right hands.

McConnell in the last big spending bill a few months ago bragged about how he sent $1Billion in handouts to his home state.

We're you outraged? Hell no! Instead, you're still mad at Hillary and Obama, as if they're still in charge.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475 ... r-kentucky

Mitch McConnell: “I saw a commercial from my likely opponent indicating that I was all that was wrong with Washington. So I have a question for her here as we go into the new year: In what way would Kentucky have been better off without any of these items that I put in the year-end spending bill?” McConnell said.

Your party is taking you for a ride. And you're buying everything they're selling.

Democrat progressives have shoved HUGE socialist programs down our throats in multiple forms changing the culture to fit their socialist agenda. After 4 decades do you think its remotely possible to extricate ourselves and go back to a culture before Social security medicare and The great Society,

I asked you this when Bush was in charge. You told me it was an "accident" that Bush didn't cut entitlements.

And here we are again, Republicans and Trump had total control of government for Trump's first 2 years. Did he cut entitlement? Nope. Instead? He increased them, pumping money to his favored voters. Billions in cash to farmers. Do you care?

Are you and your fellow "small government" Tea Partiers protesting like you did when a little D was in the White House? Shocker, no. Tea Party is nowhere to be found. Because you and your buddies don't REALLY care about small government. What you want is someone with a R by his name in the White House. So long as you have that? You wave any and all spending through. Hell, you're bragging at how great the economy is with all that Big Government deficit spending! You couldn't be any happier!

And how do you handle anyone who points this out? You either call us insane, or you bring up Obama, and tell us that Obama did it, too. Forgetting, of course, that you despised Obama....so why are you bringing him up without being angry at Trump?

Liberals exist on dependence and they built a government that fosters and enhances that dependency.

So why didn't Trump shut it all down? He and Republicans were in charge for 2 years. They didn't fix immigration reform, and they increased the size of government. More socialism. More handouts. If you actually want to go through the bills they signed, I'm happy to do it.

And yet you adore Trump. It doesn't make any sense.


Old Salt put out a plan two years ago for Immigration Reform that made perfect sense to me and most of the other posters on the board. Trump didn't do that.. Gee, do you think it's because Trump benefits from illegal workers? How many illegal workers do you think Trump has employed over the last 40 years?

And yet you adore him. Trump "pretends" to want to seal the border and fix immigration----and you fall for it.

[6ftstick]

There you go putting words in my mouth again.

I'm opposed to real socialism and your redefinition of it.

Great.

So talk to your Republicans in Congress. I'm sure that McConnell will liquidate the University of Kentucky, and privatize all US roads tomorrow.

You don't get it. Republicans are in charge of---to borrow Trump parlance----sh*thole States that can't pay their own way without handouts and socialism. So they tell voters like you that government is bad with their left hand....and cut massive checks for their home States with their right hands.

McConnell in the last big spending bill a few months ago bragged about how he sent $1Billion in handouts to his home state.

We're you outraged? Hell no! Instead, you're still mad at Hillary and Obama, as if they're still in charge.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475 ... r-kentucky

Mitch McConnell: “I saw a commercial from my likely opponent indicating that I was all that was wrong with Washington. So I have a question for her here as we go into the new year: In what way would Kentucky have been better off without any of these items that I put in the year-end spending bill?” McConnell said.

Your party is taking you for a ride. And you're buying everything they're selling.

Democrat progressives have shoved HUGE socialist programs down our throats in multiple forms changing the culture to fit their socialist agenda. After 4 decades do you think its remotely possible to extricate ourselves and go back to a culture before Social security medicare and The great Society,

I asked you this when Bush was in charge. You told me it was an "accident" that Bush didn't cut entitlements.

And here we are again, Republicans and Trump had total control of government for Trump's first 2 years. Did he cut entitlement? Nope. Instead? He increased them, pumping money to his favored voters. Billions in cash to farmers. Do you care?

Are you and your fellow "small government" Tea Partiers protesting like you did when a little D was in the White House? Shocker, no. Tea Party is nowhere to be found. Because you and your buddies don't REALLY care about small government. What you want is someone with a R by his name in the White House. So long as you have that? You wave any and all spending through. Hell, you're bragging at how great the economy is with all that Big Government deficit spending! You couldn't be any happier!

And how do you handle anyone who points this out? You either call us insane, or you bring up Obama, and tell us that Obama did it, too. Forgetting, of course, that you despised Obama....so why are you bringing him up without being angry at Trump?

Liberals exist on dependence and they built a government that fosters and enhances that dependency.

So why didn't Trump shut it all down? He and Republicans were in charge for 2 years. They didn't fix immigration reform, and they increased the size of government. More socialism. More handouts. If you actually want to go through the bills they signed, I'm happy to do it.

And yet you adore Trump. It doesn't make any sense.


Old Salt put out a plan two years ago for Immigration Reform that made perfect sense to me and most of the other posters on the board. Trump didn't do that.. Gee, do you think it's because Trump benefits from illegal workers? How many illegal workers do you think Trump has employed over the last 40 years?

And yet you adore him. Trump "pretends" to want to seal the border and fix immigration----and you fall for it.

One more time. Since Roosevelt liberal progressives have attached dependant after dependant to the government teat.

Uninterupted until Newt Gingrich. You think reversing 5 decades is doable. They can't get a penny less on the dollar spending per year for 10 years passed.

My party isn't running Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden. My party doesn't advocate for the ideas of AOC and the gang of leftists. My party doesn't advocate for infanticide, open borders or free healthcare for illegal aliens.

[dislaxxic]

Rope-a-Dope is having a profound effect. This guy is slurring his rants more than ever now, just like Dear Leader. You make numerous correct, cogent, spot on points and he comes back with Trumpist Gibberish about the evil libs and how they hate America...so dopey, so delusional. We appreciate you trying AF, and in so doing laying out for the ump-teeth time that "his party" is as bad - actually worse when it comes to wooing voters and support through handouts, their socialism just fine when "they" do it. It's a lost cause...because they're blind to it - your decade old rope-a-dope has mushed their brains...this one in particular...we know him.

..

[cradleandshoot]

Rope-a-Dope is having a profound effect. This guy is slurring his rants more than ever now, just like Dear Leader. You make numerous correct, cogent, spot on points and he comes back with Trumpist Gibberish about the evil libs and how they hate America...so dopey, so delusional. We appreciate you trying AF, and in so doing laying out for the ump-teeth time that "his party" is as bad - actually worse when it comes to wooing voters and support through handouts, their socialism just fine when "they" do it. It's a lost cause...because they're blind to it - your decade old rope-a-dope has mushed their brains...this one in particular...we know him.

..

Our resident socialist far leftie knows all ab out having mush for brains. Dis I suggest you go to Gino's and get yerself a cheese steak with wiz. That will sooth the savage liberal beast inside you.

[a fan]

One more time. Since Roosevelt liberal progressives have attached dependant after dependant to the government teat.

Uninterupted until Newt Gingrich.

Socialism and handout spending was UP with Newt, my friend. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. Shifting money from TANF over to different handout programs with different names doesn't mean the handouts stopped.

I will say I was happy about those reforms, thank you, Newt. But don't be blind-----non-military government spending went UP every year Newt was in charge of Congress.

My party isn't running Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.

So what? So long as your buddy McConnell is in office, the socialism and handouts will continue to increase, just as I told you they would all those years ago with Bush. The President doesn't legislate spending bills. Congress does.

And Trump is all too eager to borrow and spend more, so he'll sign every spending bill McConnell sends his way. But you don't care, and no amount of discussion will change your mind. You love Trump and the economy that's built on Big Government borrowed money.

My party doesn't advocate for infanticide

Half of Republican voters do. And where is your party's plan to give anyone who wants birth control free access? The libs would LOVE that program, and unwanted pregnancies would plummet, as they have in my State. Be proactive. Everyone would win.

My party doesn't advocate for open borders

Yes they do. They're open right now, remember? Your party "forgot" to pass immigration reform, and to finally fix the problem. You don't care. You're thrilled with them....because you and your fellow voters think that all you need to do is vote R, and sit back and relax. Your problem is that you don't hold them accountable for actually doing thing things you think they're doing. Instead? You attack a pointless minority party Congresswoman like AOC. ACO can't pass gas, let alone a bill. McConnell is holding all the cards. Complain to him.

My party doesn't advocate free healthcare for illegal aliens.

Oh yes they do. What happens when one of Trump's workers shows up at an ER? That's right. They get care. Why? Because your party broke their promise to you, and didn't pass an immigration reform bill. Do you care? Nope.

My party doesn't advocate for the ideas of AOC and the gang of leftists.

No, instead they pass legislation that gives all those handouts and more, and guys like you don't notice or care. I just cited McConnell openly bragging about a Billion in handouts to Kentucky, and you didn't even flinch. You think it's all cool, G, because McConnell has a little R by his name...so he gets away with it.

[6ftstick]

One more time. Since Roosevelt liberal progressives have attached dependant after dependant to the government teat.

Uninterupted until Newt Gingrich.

Socialism and handout spending was UP with Newt, my friend. Stop drinking the Kool Aid. Shifting money from TANF over to different handout programs with different names doesn't mean the handouts stopped.

I will say I was happy about those reforms, thank you, Newt. But don't be blind-----non-military government spending went UP every year Newt was in charge of Congress.

My party isn't running Bernie Sanders or Joe Biden.

So what? So long as your buddy McConnell is in office, the socialism and handouts will continue to increase, just as I told you they would all those years ago with Bush. The President doesn't legislate spending bills. Congress does.

And Trump is all too eager to borrow and spend more, so he'll sign every spending bill McConnell sends his way. But you don't care, and no amount of discussion will change your mind. You love Trump and the economy that's built on Big Government borrowed money.

My party doesn't advocate for infanticide

Half of Republican voters do. And where is your party's plan to give anyone who wants birth control free access? The libs would LOVE that program, and unwanted pregnancies would plummet, as they have in my State. Be proactive. Everyone would win.

My party doesn't advocate for open borders

Yes they do. They're open right now, remember? Your party "forgot" to pass immigration reform, and to finally fix the problem. You don't care. You're thrilled with them....because you and your fellow voters think that all you need to do is vote R, and sit back and relax. Your problem is that you don't hold them accountable for actually doing thing things you think they're doing. Instead? You attack a pointless minority party Congresswoman like AOC. ACO can't pass gas, let alone a bill. McConnell is holding all the cards. Complain to him.

My party doesn't advocate free healthcare for illegal aliens.

Oh yes they do. What happens when one of Trump's workers shows up at an ER? That's right. They get care. Why? Because your party broke their promise to you, and didn't pass an immigration reform bill. Do you care? Nope.

My party doesn't advocate for the ideas of AOC and the gang of leftists.

No, instead they pass legislation that gives all those handouts and more, and guys like you don't notice or care. I just cited McConnell openly bragging about a Billion in handouts to Kentucky, and you didn't even flinch. You think it's all cool, G, because McConnell has a little R by his name...so he gets away with it.

Spin spin spin. Its useless. One of Trumps workers? What the heck

AOC is powerless?

Regarding your equating infanticide with free birth control. I volunteer for a medical transport service that includes mentally challenged individuals going to mental health programs and counselor visits.

There are FREE condoms in big baskets on every reception desk. FACT. I'll take pictures and send them if you like.

re passing border reform
You do know that Trump was just IMPEACHED in January. After three years of constant media and democrat haranguing 95% NEGATIVE STORIES ABOUT TRUMP. The first two years very few REPUBLICANs stuck out their necks to side with Trump. He was virtually alone. Then because of the media onslaught of lies and misrepresentations democrats barely won back the house—primarily with "centrist democrats" claiming they'd support Trump. None have.

Passing anything has been an effort.

[a fan]

Spin spin spin.

Not spinning anything. You know I'm right, because I have actual math and bills signed by Trump to back me up. Handouts are Trillions larger than they were under any previous President. Government is bigger than ever.

Heck, I just quoted McConnell telling you he got $1Billion in handouts for Kentucky out of one single spending bill. And you're so far gone, you won't even believe McConnnell when he tells you to his face that he's handing out money to his voters.

Yes. AOC is powerless. If she wasn't all those "evil liberal bills" you think she's going to pass would have passed months ago. Our system of government is not complicated, nor difficult to understand. The R's control the Senate and the White House. AOC can't legislate. Full stop.

[a fan]

BTW, if your man Trump can't win the election, you'll get to see a mess of criticism from me.

I don't like Biden or Bernie.

Sure would be nice if you can find some criticism of Trump in the next year.....

[MDlaxfan76]

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.

[a fan]

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.