|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 16, 2015 21:34:46 GMT -5
Bernie is most certainly a socialist. You can debate to what degree or under what specific terminology or multiple terminologies he best fits it, but he is exactly as he proclaims himself to be... a socialist; and one who's running on a "bread and circuses" platform. Bernie promotes economic nationalism and has built his campaign upon the powerful political tool of appealing to voter resentment of others. Most of his key positions revolve around reducing our nation's economic freedoms, catapulting taxes, and exploding social programs; basically, he's trying to construct something akin to a European welfare state. Still not Socialism. Regulation is not Socialism. Taxation is not Socialism. Social programs are not Socialism. To the degree they tend towards a fully socialized system and deny the free market, they are socialist, but only to that degree. To the degree they tend away from that socialized system, they aren't socialist, but only to that degree. There is an is and is not, but there is also a mostly is or somewhat isn't. It's more accurate to say they're more socialist than non-regulation, non-taxation, and non-government / public social programs, and less so than complete regulation, complete taxation, and complete governmental societal control. We can only say something is more or less in the cases where it's neither 0% nor 100%. Horray for tautology! What most people mean when they say 'socialist' is 'more socialist than our current situation.' On me opinions: Trump is very ad hoc by-the-seat-of-his-pants or something like that. I think he'd take the blue collar vote away from most Democrats since he's a businessman and is known to be very kind to his employees. His bombasticness and non-politically-correct is what attracts the independent everyman. Being ad hoc, there's only a few specific things I know he's said that I like: "Yellen won't raise the interest rates because they don't want a crash just now," and his general stuff about "The Middle East is destabilized, and we're the ones who caused it." Other than that I don't really like him. Then again, he's not the establishment guy who's selected by the Republican party neocon leadership, and they hate that. It looks good that their pick, Jeb, isn't going anywhere. If someone not Jeb or willing to bow to them gets the nomination they might bow out / conspire with the opposition like they did with Barry Goldwater. Rand is slowly getting better (and it's showing in the polls, the Drudge one at least (it's the only one I've seen)) by channeling more of his father lately. Hopefully he keeps going that direction--I think that'd go a long way to converting hearts and minds to the cause of liberty! :D
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 16, 2015 22:56:42 GMT -5
But at that point the phrase "socialist" loses all meaning, especially in the context of the western world. Socialism is defined as the complete government takeover of a particular service/product. Communism is when you have the complete government takeover of all or nearly all systems that would otherwise be within a free market system. Capitalism is defined simply as having a system where there is product/service to customer transfer/sale that is not completely controlled by the government. You can also have government interventions that are pro-capitalist, such as Anti-Trust intervention and just like Anti-Trust regulations Bernie's ideas have all been pro-capitalist, because they involve strengthening the free market by increasing the stability and buying power of people in middle and lower classes. The beliefs and definitions of a candidate aren't as important as what they are going to do if elected. With 2016 the most important actions IMO are going to be replacing the soon to retire Supreme Court Justices. I know that if trump, Cruz, or Carson win the replacements will be more Scalia assholes who can't even stay consistent on their positions within 48 hours, if Jeb or Rubio win it's going to be a combination of Scalia types and Kennedy types, and if Hillary or Bernie win it's going to be Ginsberg and Kagan types. I'd rather have Supreme Court justices replaced by people who understand the concept of "Equal Protection under law" and don't claim that corporations are people rather than hacks that will spend their time arguing how anti-sodomy laws are necessary or how "separation of church and state" is really just about popular religion being above the law. Sir, what I mean by 'socialist' and what you mean by 'socialist' are two separate things. I'm using a different definition, but that doesn't mean the ideas behind them have lost meaning. There's no point quibbling about what words mean when it's the meaning that counts and not the words. Meaning isn't inherent to words. Besides, my definition goes along with how many people use it when they say "Obama is socialist" or something like that, not that that matters to our discussion. I learned it in my community college western civ course, is understood this way more often. One of the fathers of this way of thinking would be Bastiat. There are degrees of socialization a country may be in, therefore people are more or less socialist, not socialist or not. It's one of those sliding scale thingies. Otherwise, historically, a difference academic historians, not people who mean things in the popular sense, ascribe to self-described Socialists and Communists in Europe has been strategy. Communism is a more traditional Marxian bottom-up violent revolt--which is why, say, Lenin instituted a new economic plan to grow the middle class, because you can't have a proletariat revolution without the bourgeois. At least that's how the teachers used it. Stalin was described that way too, but his strategy was different in that he wanted to skip the middle part, or saw the middle part as sufficiently done, but he was still communist in the sense that he came to power through unscrupulous means, but I suppose one could argue that the system was based on having no scruples. Anyways, the end goal was the same: a classless society with the means of production publicly owned. Socialists, on the other hand, attempt to work up through the system in power. They like democracies, republics, those sorts of things. Hitler tried the a weird nationalist communism with the Beer Hall Putsch, but nobody was on board, so he changed up his strategy and became a 'national socialist'--aka, fascist. Whereas socialism and communism are normally described as class-identifying and nationally transcendent, fascism is described as an unholy union of socialism and nationalism. How are you defining 'pro-capitalist'? Favorable for the system, for the people under the system, as a change to the system of capitalism for the better, for the entrepreneurs under the system? I'd also like to see how you think that these trusts come about naturally, historically, and what the anti-trust policies would do to prevent bad things from happening. Also, what are your thoughts on Paul, who placed third in the Drudge poll last night? Nevermind Carson or Jeb, who've got like nothing in the polls Lastly, please describe what you mean by "Equal Protection under the law." You can't expect me to respond if I don't have a clear picture of what you're talking about~ I'm defining pro-capitalist as when something strengthens the capitalist economy. Increasing the ability of the middle and lower classes' to purchase things helps the economy. The equal protection thing is referring to how the 14th amendment specifically says that all citizens are to have equal protection under the law with the only exception being due process, yet 4 judges claimed during the most recent Gay Marriage case that there is somehow an unwritten exception that gay people can be discriminated against the right to marry (yes marriage is a right due to how "liberty" has been defined since the 1920s). If socialism is a measurement of degree and not a yes or no question, then calling someone or something simply socialist gives absolutely no real info. The person we were talking about called Bernie a Socialist as though socialism was a yes or no question, when he is not a socialist, but a Social Democrat in favor of Social Democracy. Only far right loons are going to claim that the Europe is all Socialist, so I don't see what makes Bernie Sanders a socialist. Like Alexcalibur said, something isn't socialist just because it involves the government. The literal definition of socialism is NOT government involvement, but is defined as the complete government takeover of something. As for Rand Paul, his stance on the Middle East is understandable, and to some degree he is more consistent about his views than other candidates, but his stance on anti-discrimination laws show the flaw of taking libertarianism to such a degree as he does. When he talks about the Middle East or the Drug War he makes sense, but when he talks about anything else he sounds like a loon that believes the free market will magically fix every problem perfectly. eLantern, Ted Cruz is not a well respected politician except among his fans and the freedom caucus. Everyone else hates his shtick of claiming to be this non-establishment guy who is "for the people" or whatever bullshit when he is most certainly part of the establishment and just cares about increasing how much people know of him in he political world. Also, can you name any actual prosecutions for which Hillary should be in jail? The 10 effing hours long Benghazi hearing didn't turn up jack shit on her and the supposed email scandal is so far looking to have the same number of results. If Cheney can lie about WMDs and Reagan can lie about his involvement in Iran-Contra, then I don't see why Hillary should be in jail when she hasn't even been prosecuted for anything. And yes, I was alluding to the government shutdown and risk of default that the Republicans pulled in 2013 because rather than wait for when the system would normally allow them to enact the changes they wanted, they decided to literally refuse to do necessary things like pass a budget and raise the debt ceiling unless they got everything they wanted immediately then less than half of them decided later on that maybe holding the country for hostage wasn't to way to make friends and influence people. Good politics involves actual fucking compromise, which the spineless democrats do all the damn time, but the majority of republicans, especially the freedom caucus and a-holes like Ted Cruz are against the very concept of getting stuff done through compromise. They hated Boener specifically because he was willing to do some actual politics instead of just demanding he get everything the far right wanted.
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 17, 2015 9:25:19 GMT -5
I like this Flinch fella
|
|
|
Post by blackbarney on Dec 17, 2015 10:14:35 GMT -5
lol, i love this site. On the two other sites I frequent, people get lynched for that kind of talky talk.
I'm smart enough to know the difference.
-Mousey 2016
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 17, 2015 20:32:49 GMT -5
ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42)So I guess you're intent on having a semantics debate over the term socialism? Perhaps you should define your perspective of the terms "socialism" and "socialist"; plus, explain how Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist so that I can comprehend your peculiar perspective regarding him and socialism while in the mean time I'll go on to provide you with further evidence to the contrary. First off, I hope we can both agree that the term "socialism" (in today's typical referencing of it) often relates to specific types of socio-economic systems or in other words types of political control and manipulation of the economy, correct? However, let's not dismiss the fact that its origin came about as an opposing philosophical outlook to liberal individualism which means in its root form it also references a person's philosophical view, moral values, ideals, theories, or even human character in opposition to individualism; therefore, perhaps we can also agree that the true meaning of socialism is difficult to sum up under one singular definition, right? Socialism could even be described as a set of values based around notions of social justice, could it not? Anyways, in order to continue with better clarity over the semantics of the term socialism let's try to maintain a focus on the economic side. A very brief historical summary of socialistic economics shows us that it's had to constantly evolve over time because it's proved a failure time and time again. The early forms of socialism on economic policy were strictly based on the concept that "the state" (aka the government or the political ruling class) should take full ownership of all factors of production and then distribute them based on needs. The early implementations of these socio-economics were exposed as complete failures because in a world of scarce resources economies need private ownership, prices, profits and losses to determine where resources should be directed; not some political representative's belief or opinion of "need". This forced socialists to redefine how socialism could work economically which led to early market simulation concepts; these attempted to use controlled mechanisms to simulate a market effect, but bureaucratization meant to provide some accountability and prevent corruption proved a serious issue; therefore, market simulation's failure gave way to further reinventions of a so-called working socialistic economy. A variety of market socialism concepts as well as many mixed economic markets all of which are typically heavily influenced by Keynesian economic views and tied to huge welfare states are the new socio-economic means. Peter J. Boettke, who wrote Socialism and the Market: The Socialist Calculation Debate Revisited, said that their was a fundamental objective for socialism in comparison to capitalism; that objective was to advance an economy's means of production under the view that human productive capability could be expanded by extensions of freedom and equality; though, the problem with that objective was that it was based on a socialistic theory that human behavior (our morals, values, cultural traits, and economic practices) are dictated and shaped by our social environment verses a natural law. Now, I personally believe that the truth lies somewhere in between as I think human behavior can be influenced by our social environment, but I think a natural law does exists around Universal Ethical Egoism. Nevertheless, if our social environment cannot ensure (or guarantee) a society's willingness to do their so-called "part" or in turn pay their "fair share" happily and agreeably under the guise of "for the greater good" then the fundamental objective for socialism's socio-economic policies will ultimately succumb to a variety of failures which by the way history has taught us will occur (time and time again). When someone attempts to look up the definition of socialism by which it applies itself to an economic theory it's often strictly defined as a system by which the means of production, distribution, and exchange are owned by a community collectively, but that definition leaves out additional economic characteristics relating to the philosophical concept of socialism; therefore, I think it's prudent to point out that any one or a combination of these economic characteristics can also be directly related to socialism on an economic level: production for use rather than profit, equality of individual wealth, the absence of competitive economic activity, and government determination of investment, prices, and production levels. Now, America isn't a pure capitalistic nation by any means; in fact, its' economic policy is riddled with characteristics of socialism, but the positioning I'm taking with regards to calling an American politician a socialist has to due with whether that individual wishes to increase the amount of socio-economic policies in America and to what degree. Now, Bernie Sanders is most definitely advocating for major increases of socialistic policies to America's economy and that is why he is a socialist (just as he claims himself to be); btw, pretty much any democratic candidate, given the party's general running platform and direction, is a degree and type of socialist but Bernie is by far the most radical. Bernie is advocating for a type of mixed economic system based upon socializing the results of private enterprise; his regime would take control of some of the produce of private enterprise (which would remain in private hands as opposed to taking outright control) and he'd also place significant regulatory burdens on those he believed to be unnecessary or a social hindrance. Basically, Crony Capitalism will be at the forefront of his economic system because his administration would be involved with hand picking winners and losers based on imposing controls and regulations in order to direct production in a way to satisfy political purposes and whims. Not to mention, in reference to the socialism aspect why seize the means of production when you can leave other people to produce everything and then just take it afterwards, right? A huge complaint I have with Bernie also deals with how he's built his political momentum; he's running on a platform which decries profiteers and the wealthy (those who are often the driving force behind economic growth); plus, speaks out against political corruption (a position I very much agree with, but his is mostly misdirected) while harnessing nationalism and pushing the idea of a larger national purpose -- all things that certainly drum up support, but all-in-all it's simply a method that builds political power by appealing to the American voter's resentment towards others. Not to mention, he falsely promises that his policies will bring equality. I say that because the truth of the matter is that his socialistic platform is nothing more than "Bread and Circuses"; his policies will be unequivocally bad for the country and its economy -- his policies will only succeed in creating more inequality. Lastly, I find it funny that Bernie cites Scandinavia as a so-called socialistic economic model to which America should attempt to replicate because he's clearly clueless regarding what been going on in these countries or has any comprehension of Isomorphic Mimicry. First of all, the economic model is called the Nordic Model and while it has strong ties to socialism through its welfare model the economic system's policies are very much based on maintaining strong capitalistic freedoms. Scandinavia has struggled with the sustainability of its welfare model and issues regarding equality are not absent; in fact, these countries have been engaged in a long campaign of reforming their famously generous welfare state and to do so they've been marching in the direction exactly opposite of socialism for some time. Their lavish subsidies are being rolled back amid sharp concerns about welfare abuse and an eroding work ethic. By the way, does Bernie realize that the corporate tax rates (referencing their capitalistic freedoms) are well below our rates? Probably not considering his economic policies and promises would require ours which are already fairly high to be raised exponentially. Bernie's socialistic nature envies their large and expensive welfare state, but he campaigns against the very method by which they're only able to support it: massive taxes on the middle class. Seriously, do socialists and idiots like Bernie understand that often the very thing that their philosophy tells them is right is the exact opposite of what their policy views actually achieve? Either they're buffoons or they're simply interested in gaining power through a resentment-based manipulation of the masses. Which one is Bernie? I say he's just an old geezer and buffoon; though, a politically scary one.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 17, 2015 21:29:06 GMT -5
Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Now if you want to argue that taxes and regulations are a form of control, and that it's not a laissez-faire Capitalist system, fine. But it's still not Socialism because he isn't advocating for the government to own the means of production. He believes in a mixed economy, with more emphasis on Governmental regulation and Social services. But it's still an inherently capitalist system. Here's the thing, Capitalism, when it was created, never even remotely imagined the incredible impact of Corporations. Adam Smith himself thought Corporations were useless. The basis of Capitalism was on small business, so to try and say Capitalism can work with multi-billion dollar corporations running amok without government interference is to not understand Capitalism. Bernie Sanders does not advocate for the ownership over the means of production to transfer to the government. He just advocates for a stronger government to reign in the corporations. We're a mixed economy, we have been for awhile, because we saw first hand what unregulated business did 100 years ago.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 17, 2015 21:51:49 GMT -5
It sure can when you're part of the ruling class.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 17, 2015 22:39:55 GMT -5
It sure can when you're part of the ruling class. As opposed to pure capitalism where the richer you are the more control you have on others? I'd rather have a ruling government class that can be voted out (either directly or indirectly) than a ruling corporate class that can't be stopped except by government intervention. Also, if Bernie Sanders is advocating for government/economy systems based on countries that, according to you, aren't socialist, then how is he a socialist? You're right though that the Nordic systems aren't purely socialist, which is why they are given the title of "Social Democracy". It's not totalitarianism like in a communist country, but is instead a Hyrbid of capitalism & socialism with the socialist parts being democratic.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 2:13:38 GMT -5
We should repudiate the debt. Maybe China would go to war with us, kek Those unfunded liabilities tho Literally bankrupt. Even Paul Krugman called social security a ponzi scheme c'mon let's be honest here sorry for the post I'll respond later maybe (we all know how them promises go, not that you guys want to read my anarchosomethings anyways) also raise interest rates or riot ヽ༼ຈل͜ຈ༽ノ
|
|
42
True Bro
Bingo Bango Bongo
Posts: 1,588
|
Post by 42 on Dec 18, 2015 9:09:44 GMT -5
Interest rates are already rising.
Obama 2016
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 18, 2015 10:41:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 13:02:21 GMT -5
I mean, like, that doesn't change anything.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 18, 2015 14:20:24 GMT -5
Yes it does. Because it's not a ponzi scheme and he never meant for people to take it that way. A ponzi scheme by definition is fraudulent, SS is not fraudulent, so it's not a ponzi scheme
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 15:08:07 GMT -5
Yes it does. Because it's not a ponzi scheme and he never meant for people to take it that way. A ponzi scheme by definition is fraudulent, SS is not fraudulent, so it's not a ponzi scheme Oh. Okay. That strikes me as a walk-back / backpedal from Krugman, then. Another one, then, Paul Samuelson, a prominent Keynesian like Krugman, also called SS a ponzi scheme. Your argument hinges on how you're defining "fraudulent." This confuses me, though. Please explain what you mean by it, and how one would distinguish something that has a similar investment / payout structure that's legitimate and not fraudulent. Alright, let's say what I mean by it is something different for now. But how I mean a ponzi scheme still fits Social Security. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission: "What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. . . . In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. Why do Ponzi schemes collapse? With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out." sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm Obviously, what I mean by 'fraud' is something else, but setting that aside... SS and Medicare have Ponzi aspects to them under these definitions. I also forgot to mention Medicare, which is actually a bigger financial threat than SS. "Think about it: the government taxes current workers in order to pay current retirees their Social Security and Medicare benefits. When today's workers grow old and retire, they in turn will receive their benefit payments from payroll taxes taken from future workers. The whole system depends on bringing in new 'participants,' or else it collapses. Indeed, as we will soon see, the system is collapsing, because of shifting demographics. . . . Before we dive into the scary numbers regarding Medicare's impact on the federal budget, it's important to first explain why demographics matter so much when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. The answer is that they are indeed Ponzi schemes, where the original 'investors' are paid not with the genuine earnings created from the wise investment of their initial contributions, but instead with the money flowing in from the next wave of 'investors.'" - don't obsess about finding the source for this one. I'd rather you focus on the arguments themselves. I can post the 'as we will soon see' part if you want. It has neat graphs and stuff from
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 18, 2015 15:11:12 GMT -5
I mean, like, that doesn't change anything. You specifically said Krugman called Social Security a ponzi scheme, when in fact he did not, but at most compared it to ponzi schemes and talked about how the benefits that newer generations will get from social security will inevitably go down compared to the baby boomer generation and the generation before that because the baby boomer generation was a big increase in population. He didn't suggest that Social Security was fraudulent, just that the benefits will inevitably change as people no longer grow as fast in population as they did in previous generations.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 18, 2015 15:21:01 GMT -5
Yes it does. Because it's not a ponzi scheme and he never meant for people to take it that way. A ponzi scheme by definition is fraudulent, SS is not fraudulent, so it's not a ponzi scheme Oh. Okay. That strikes me as a walk-back / backpedal from Krugman, then. Another one, then, Paul Samuelson, a prominent Keynesian like Krugman, also called SS a ponzi scheme. Your argument hinges on how you're defining "fraudulent." This confuses me, though. Please explain what you mean by it, and how one would distinguish something that has a similar investment / payout structure that's legitimate and not fraudulent. Alright, let's say what I mean by it is something different for now. But how I mean a ponzi scheme still fits Social Security. According to the Securities and Exchange Commission: "What is a Ponzi scheme? A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that involves the payment of purported returns to existing investors from funds contributed by new investors. . . . In many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters focus on attracting new money to make promised payments to earlier-stage investors to create the false appearance that investors are profiting from a legitimate business. Why do Ponzi schemes collapse? With little or no legitimate earnings, Ponzi schemes require a consistent flow of money from new investors to continue. Ponzi schemes tend to collapse when it becomes difficult to recruit new investors or when a large number of investors ask to cash out." sec.gov/answers/ponzi.htm Obviously, what I mean by 'fraud' is something else, but setting that aside... SS and Medicare have Ponzi aspects to them under these definitions. I also forgot to mention Medicare, which is actually a bigger financial threat than SS. "Think about it: the government taxes current workers in order to pay current retirees their Social Security and Medicare benefits. When today's workers grow old and retire, they in turn will receive their benefit payments from payroll taxes taken from future workers. The whole system depends on bringing in new 'participants,' or else it collapses. Indeed, as we will soon see, the system is collapsing, because of shifting demographics. . . . Before we dive into the scary numbers regarding Medicare's impact on the federal budget, it's important to first explain why demographics matter so much when it comes to Social Security and Medicare. The answer is that they are indeed Ponzi schemes, where the original 'investors' are paid not with the genuine earnings created from the wise investment of their initial contributions, but instead with the money flowing in from the next wave of 'investors.'" - don't obsess about finding the source for this one. I'd rather you focus on the arguments themselves. I can post the 'as we will soon see' part if you want. It has neat graphs and stuff from Your definition of Ponzi Scheme doesn't fit Social Security, because there is no lie about Social Security being a business that makes money outside of investment. Ponzi Scheme is when someone makes a business and purposefully leaves out the fact that the only reason it is making money is from people investing in it. A better example of a Ponzi scheme is all the Gold BS that went on when the financial crisis was at its worst. Your way of claiming that Social Security is a Ponzi Scheme could be used to claim that all stock market investment is a Ponzi Scheme when there are numerous cases of stock market investment that are not Ponzi Schemes. Same thing with Medicare. The whole point of Medicare is exactly the same as the point of any Insurance: Pay for those in crisis with the payment of those not in crisis. There is no lie about where the money is coming from, so it is therefor not a Ponzi Scheme. Will Medicare and Social Security need to change in order to last longer, absolutely. Changing the payroll tax so that it isn't capped will help better pay for Social Security. Changing Medicare from a high risk pool of the elderly to a low risk pool that includes everyone and changing the taxes to pay for it accordingly would make it survive much longer.
|
|
eLantern
True Bro
"Oh, cruel fate, to be thusly boned! Ask not for whom the bone bones, it bones for thee!" - Bender
Posts: 10,761
|
Post by eLantern on Dec 18, 2015 17:04:11 GMT -5
Socialism is the government owning the means of production. I disagree; it's basically a living, breathing political movement and it'll adapt, change, and develop new insights as necessary. As Socialist Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Party’s first Prime Minister, once said in defining Socialism, "Socialism is whatever's in this year’s Labour Party's Manifesto" and the gist of that response is that it constantly evolves, but it's tied to a specific philosophy. Anyways, I figured we wouldn't see eye to eye on the definition for the broad ranging term "socialism", but whatever... since I clearly am not going to be able to convince you of the truth that Bernie Sanders is indeed a socialist at least give consideration to the unintended and intended consequences of his political proposals. Most importantly take note that he's not proposing anything that would help bring about a true economic recovery; in fact, his proposals would do the exact opposite. Honestly, based on Sanders' proposals it appears he perceives the world like this: entrepreneurs are parasites, employers are oppressors, and wealth is defined by how much the government has in their treasury.
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Dec 18, 2015 18:26:47 GMT -5
It's not a broad ranging term. Socialism is the government owning the means of production. How you want to define government and production can be broad, which is why there are different versions of Socialism. From pure Socialism to Democratic Socialism to Social Anarchists, which would be more akin to pure Communism.
And Jaedrik it's not fraudulent because there's no trickery or deceit. Social Security is easy to understand, we as a country take a certain part of our paychecks to take care of the retired and disabled.
I love how people keep trying to redefine and manipulate words in order to get their view across. Fraud has a clear definition, Socialism has a clear definition. You can quote whoever you want about their personal opinion on what something means, but it doesn't change the fact that Socialism is the government owning the means of production. Nor does it change the meaning of Fraud to mean something that might see a decrease in pay outs because the pay in isn't matching the needs. Because if we start making broad sweeping definitions of political theories, then they lose all meaning. Then I can claim the Constitution was more Socialist than the Articles of Confederation because it established a stronger central government that could control the production of currency and established that federal laws trump state laws. But then that would mean we've always been socialist. Which is stupid to say, and it's stupid to try and say we're socialist now. But when you're so far to one side of the political spectrum, everything is to the opposite direction of you.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Dec 18, 2015 20:55:15 GMT -5
Ohhh doo doo Yellen actually hiked rates
WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN OHHHHH BOY OOHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH BOOOIIIYYYYYOOOOOOO
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 18, 2015 22:04:52 GMT -5
Socialism is the government owning the means of production. I disagree; it's basically a living, breathing political movement and it'll adapt, change, and develop new insights as necessary. As Socialist Ramsay MacDonald, the Labour Party’s first Prime Minister, once said in defining Socialism, "Socialism is whatever's in this year’s Labour Party's Manifesto" and the gist of that response is that it constantly evolves, but it's tied to a specific philosophy. Anyways, I figured we wouldn't see eye to eye on the definition for the broad ranging term "socialism", but whatever... since I clearly am not going to be able to convince you of the truth that Bernie Sanders is indeed a socialist at least give consideration to the unintended and intended consequences of his political proposals. Most importantly take note that he's not proposing anything that would help bring about a true economic recovery; in fact, his proposals would do the exact opposite. Honestly, based on Sanders' proposals it appears he perceives the world like this: entrepreneurs are parasites, employers are oppressors, and wealth is defined by how much the government has in their treasury. Do you have any actual proof that socialism is defined as any form of government involvement? Because if not then you are just talking out of your ass. And most people who like Bernie Sanders have already considered how his proposals would affect the economy which is why they actually like his ideas. Strengthening the middle and lower classes directly is exactly how you boost the economy, not trickle down bullshit. And do you have any proof that Sanders thinks that entrepreneurs are parasites or that he thinks employers are oppressors, or that he thinks wealth is defined by how much the government has in their treasury? Too free a market ruins the economy by making wealth in and of itself lead to more power and more wealth, creating a snowball effect where the wealthy become more influential and wealthy than everyone else combined.
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Dec 19, 2015 1:17:31 GMT -5
Well, while you all have been debating the definition of socialism, the government snuck CISA through.
|
|
Will
True Bro
K/D below 1.0
Posts: 1,309
|
Post by Will on Dec 19, 2015 7:01:30 GMT -5
Well, while you all have been debating the definition of socialism, the government snuck CISA through. Of the presidential candidates: Sens. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) voted no, while Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) voted yes. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) was the only presidential candidate to miss the vote.
|
|
|
Post by dunsparceflinch on Dec 19, 2015 7:13:15 GMT -5
Well, while you all have been debating the definition of socialism, the government snuck CISA through. Now THAT is a legitimate complaint. Although, from the way the article worded things it sounds like CISA was attached to the Budget, meaning both congressmen and senators were left with the option to either pass it, or hope that not passing didn't lead to another Shutdown. So you can kinda blame both parties for passing it and signing it into law, but you most certainly have to blame whichever congressman drafted it as 1 combined thing and the speaker of the house for deciding to bring up a combined version for voting on.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 11:35:14 GMT -5
Iowa cuckuses more like. Bernie deserved that win. Bullshit coin tosses, fraud / questionable behavior by vote counters etc., and delegates crap. Well, at least we have the corruption of the political system shoved in their faces now. The more people that see the dishonesty of the whole thing, the more people fight back. We need more Ron Pauls and Bernie Sanderses. They should be the type of men (honest people) to win elections.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 11:39:36 GMT -5
here i thought jews controlled the worlds money o l d m o n e y Rothschild Rockefeller Goldman Sachs Soros IMF FEDERAL RESERVE (PRIVATE STOCKHOLDERS) BANK OF JAPAN EU BANK ALL OF THEM ARE J E W S (more accurately they would be participants in Rabbinical Phariseeism, if I actually believed the hoopla) Man I've been spending too much time on /r/conspiracy lately :KappaFace:
|
|
|
Post by Aphoristic on Feb 4, 2016 12:49:35 GMT -5
Caucusing has always been a joke.
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 12:53:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by jaedrik on Feb 4, 2016 13:28:17 GMT -5
Jaedrik i learned to stop clicking any of the shit you post months ago This is a doo doopost. Oh, man the Foxtrot up. You think I give a doo doo? I do. Because I care about you. Doo dooing on me like this only frustrates everyone involved and can result in a circlejerk putdown echo chamber. Could you be more pretentious? Probably. Be open minded or something like that instead, or don't say anything. Please. Edit: huh no autocensor
|
|
|
Post by ChloeB42 (Alexcalibur42) on Feb 4, 2016 14:24:02 GMT -5
I checked the link. Not very convincing, especially because many of then had nothing to do with vaccines or autism.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2016 14:43:56 GMT -5
Bernie deserved that win.
|
|