Democrats Must Embrace Socialism Or Be Irrelevant
- Thread starter livingston
- Start date
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
We seriously need a thumbs down button here!!
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
Back at ya (lol). Figured most of us would be an "ineligible for free stuff" citizen permanently on their irrelevant and naughty list until you willingly surrender your possessions, rights, and beliefs to the state for redistribution to the more worthy. Anyway they always need someone else to pay for the free stuff that they get to parcel out.
LIFE IS BETTER ON THE NAUGHTY LIST
Last edited:
Every civilized country has some form of socialism in its system. Considering GOP does absolutely nothing for gun rights in NY, I don't see the reason to side with them in class warfare. Most of the common knowledge about socialism in this country is based on decades of cold war indoctrination. In other words people don't know what they are talking about.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
Except for you, of course. Please, enlighten us.
I know both sides of the story. You were exposed to only one.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
And I'm inviting you to share your knowledge - if you would be so kind.
Best that they fully embrace socialism and be honest about it. They can't though because it's not a popular ideology here.
I did. You ignored it and posted a wise ass comment.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
That's it? 'Everybody else does it' and 'The rich, old Republicans are engaging in class warfare'? I thought you had a better, more reasoned argument than that. Seriously, what is that game changing information that you have and the rest of us don't?
I prefer a more diverse political spectrum, then the rule of two corrupt political parties, who take care of themselves and feed the rest of us lies and empty promises. Diversity of ideas is not a bad thing, whether it comes from the right or from the left.
I will guess you are NOT the Only person who knows both sides, or are you Special?
Modean
.223 Rem
You mean those benefits I have been paying into for the past 35 years? That’s not socialism. Have a look at Venezuela.
I didn't say I was special. I said I know both sides.
Many (if not the most) of the people will get more out of it than what they were paying just in medical benefits.
ManrisFrack
6.5 Creedmoor
Well said.
I don't see how a system comprised of more than two parties could function adequately for extended periods of time. I think that such a system would eventually drift toward a two or, similar to what I believe we have in the US now, a single party system that maintains the illusion of two. As soon as one party becomes dominant, the others will ally or conglomerate to shift power back. Suppose that we could find a balanced and durable multi-party system. How do you manage the corruption that inevitably accompanies the sort of power necessary guide and run a nation or society?
Social security is dangerously close to a Ponzi scheme. I'd gladly take what I've paid in, plus inflation, and go my own way. Unfortunately, there isn't enough money left to do that for everyone.
Healthcare/medicare? I benefit greatly from VA healthcare. There are certainly trade-offs in quality, availability and freedom. Would the healthcare system be VA healthcare on steroids if it all went single payer? On the other hand, healthcare isn't terribly compatible with the typical competitive mechanisms of the free market. Nobody calls 3 or 4 hospitals asking for quotes on heart surgery and you wouldn't get a quote, even if you tried. I think healthcare is an area where the government does have a role. I don't think its role is to manage and/or administer all or even most of it.
So back to the point... I personally think that some socialism is okay, maybe even good. Like anything else, it's all about degrees. One of the biggest problems I have is that there is very little serious study and discussion about the socialist measures that the US has already implemented. We should be evaluating, fixing and/or ending these existing measures before marching further down the socialistic path. Possibly the biggest issue is the moral and ethical questions surrounding how these programs are funded. Is Robin Hood a good guy, just a common thief or does it depend on how depraved the nobility are?
E the massive
.308 Win
Hope so. It's called interest on money invested. But I will settle for the cash minus the interest.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
So you don't like two party rule and would rather replace it with one party rule?
Can you please point us to an example of a country that has embraced socialism/communism and come out the other side for the better? Excluding scandanavia because they're by many measures more capitalist than are we.
Me and 100 million dead people from the 20th century look forward to your answer.
Can you please point us to an example of a country that has embraced socialism/communism and come out the other side for the better? Excluding scandanavia because they're by many measures more capitalist than are we.
Me and 100 million dead people from the 20th century look forward to your answer.
Steal2B
.700 Nitro Express
In my case, if my Social Security donations (Employeer and Employee or similar Self Employment Tax) were put in a private account (60 / 40 indexed funds) and then used to purchase an annuity, the payment of the privately purchased lifetime annuity would be QUADRUPLE that of my Social Security payment. I looked a spreadsheet of various incomes and scenarios and there was not a single example where anyone who worked for a good number of years received more social security than they did with conservative private investments. It is just math even with various annuity survivor or pop-up options. A simple google search found data with the same conclusions.
Last edited:
I can point to most of Western democracies where socialist and communist parties are a normal part of political scene, while U.S. practically criminalized these political beliefs. Free country, right? Your figure of 100 million is a hoax, it is based on long discredited propaganda. Wars, famines and epidemics weren't invented by the Communists and went on in countries where communists came to power long before that. In fact communists used these high death rates as catalyst for their movement. These countries weren't exactly Jeffersonian democracies with good civil rights record and high standard of living.
There is also another inconvenient fact, it was communists who defeated nazis, with our help of course, but they did most of the fighting and dying. Not trying to defend communism or socialism, just putting things in a proper historical perspective.
Last edited:
Twogunwilly
6.5 Creedmoor
I don't want any free shit. just want to be left alone to enjoy the fruits of my labor and I aint givin up my apples to socialist sponges.
The Russian winter beat the Germans, not the Russians.
The Russian winter beat the Germans, not the Russians.
Here is just one example of how our government fabricated a communist genocide and used it to pit Slavic people against each other.
Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin's Crime That Never Took Place
Holodomor Hoax: Joseph Stalin's Crime That Never Took Place
Russian winter doesn't last 4 years. Most of the major battles weren't even in the winter.
Twogunwilly
6.5 Creedmoor
Exactly my point.
BDinPutnam
.475 A&M Magnum
Yeeee..... ok.
You're correct in your other comment that communists didn't invent famine.
They just seem to have perfected it.