ADVERTISEMENT

C'mon Defend Socialism!

dogstud

Diehard supporter
Gold Member
Jun 10, 2004
7,217
11,421
172
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists will lay is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.
 
Last edited:
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.
BB15IGzf.img
 
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.

This is one example of how rotten Biden's plan is , he has put AOC in charge of planning for the countries energy . For all she knows the oil wells will pump beer , based on her work experience ! This has got to be a joke !!
 
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.

The " CRICKETS " from the libs is the loudest , need ear plugs !
 
I mean - this is so obvious that if you need to hear it again, you're just looking for a fight. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are class A socialism, but there is a limited benefit there I think we can agree. Indeed, corporate socialism doesn't trickle down, as we now know from decades of hoping it would. There are plenty of other examples of course. Roads. Airports. The social security and/or unemployment that most on this board seem to live on. Medicaid and Medicare are definite and unquestionably useful both in reducing the overall cost of healthcare and as a basic underpinning of a civil society. Etc.
 
I mean - this is so obvious that if you need to hear it again, you're just looking for a fight. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are class A socialism, but there is a limited benefit there I think we can agree. Indeed, corporate socialism doesn't trickle down, as we now know from decades of hoping it would. There are plenty of other examples of course. Roads. Airports. The social security and/or unemployment that most on this board seem to live on. Medicaid and Medicare are definite and unquestionably useful both in reducing the overall cost of healthcare and as a basic underpinning of a civil society. Etc.
I assume you disagree with the concept of Corp bailouts, correct? I wouldn’t call that Socialism (although I oppose bailouts too), but the King was Obammy.
 
I assume you disagree with the concept of Corp bailouts, correct? I wouldn’t call that Socialism (although I oppose bailouts too), but the King was Obammy.

I don't necessarily - it depends - but note that Obama's bailout of Chrysler, for instance, was paid back. On the one hand, that admin got us out of a recession. On the other I don't think they went anywhere near close enough in punishing Wall Street's bad actors, and that was a mistake that might be the worst of his presidency. So, I think there are appropriate times - and ways to structure bailouts - that we have done better and worse in our history. Obviously, the current, ongoing bailout is necessary, though seemingly poorly structured (such that not enough of the money is getting to small business, and it's not really moving us forward through the crisis and has no oversight.) My major dislike is of ongoing corporate subsidies and tax breaks that both interfere with the free market AND which come at an opportunity cost of providing things that the people of this country really need, i.e. things the government is uniquely positioned to accomplish. (Is it infrastructure week yet?)
 
Last edited:
I mean - this is so obvious that if you need to hear it again, you're just looking for a fight. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are class A socialism, but there is a limited benefit there I think we can agree. Indeed, corporate socialism doesn't trickle down, as we now know from decades of hoping it would. There are plenty of other examples of course. Roads. Airports. The social security and/or unemployment that most on this board seem to live on. Medicaid and Medicare are definite and unquestionably useful both in reducing the overall cost of healthcare and as a basic underpinning of a civil society. Etc.

Corporate tax breaks and subsidies aren't even close to socialism. When a government understands an employer investing in their community is a huge net positive and allows them to operate with minimal governmental interference and handicaps, you aren't even close to socialism.

The OP asked for a defense of socialism and you swerved towards crony capitalism which is a problem. Understanding investment dollars go where it's treated well isnt a problem at all.
 
I don't necessarily - it depends - but note that Obama's bailout of Chrysler, for instance, was paid back. On the one hand, that admin got us out of a recession. On the other I don't think they went anywhere near close enough in punishing Wall Street's bad actors, and that was a mistake that might be the worst of his presidency. So, I think there are appropriate times - and ways to structure bailouts - that we have done better and worse in our history. Obviously, the current, ongoing bailout is necessary, though seemingly poorly structured (such that not enough of the money is getting to small business, and it's not really moving us forward through the crisis and has no oversight.) My major dislike is of ongoing corporate subsidies and tax breaks that both interfere with the free market AND which come at an opportunity cost of providing things that the people of this country really need, i.e. things the government is uniquely positioned to accomplish. (Is it infrastructure week yet?)
I don’t like bail outs for a variety of reasons. Perhaps the biggest reason is that the government picks and chooses who wins. I didn’t/don’t love Mitt, but he was correct about bankruptcy for the auto manufacturers. That’s exactly what our bankruptcy laws are designed to address. Much more often than not, the taxpayers are not repaid.
 
I mean - this is so obvious that if you need to hear it again, you're just looking for a fight. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are class A socialism, but there is a limited benefit there I think we can agree. Indeed, corporate socialism doesn't trickle down, as we now know from decades of hoping it would. There are plenty of other examples of course. Roads. Airports. The social security and/or unemployment that most on this board seem to live on. Medicaid and Medicare are definite and unquestionably useful both in reducing the overall cost of healthcare and as a basic underpinning of a civil society. Etc.
Please explain how Medicare and Medicaid have been useful in reducing the overall cost of healthcare.
 
Corporate tax breaks and subsidies aren't even close to socialism. When a government understands an employer investing in their community is a huge net positive and allows them to operate with minimal governmental interference and handicaps, you aren't even close to socialism.

The OP asked for a defense of socialism and you swerved towards crony capitalism which is a problem. Understanding investment dollars go where it's treated well isnt a problem at all.

I mean, I am not immune to the distinction you are making, but it's kind of potato/potato isn't it? You say it's not even close, I would say government investment is a step on the road to government ownership, except in our case, because we live in a plutocracy, where our legislators are bought and paid for, and those investments lack oversight or any checks on whether or not they are good investments. In that case, it's pretty shady to me.

Further, you say "huge net positive" but (1) how much governmental support of corporations really meets that bar and (2) what percent of those could/would the beneficiaries buy themselves. We could have a long discussion of stadiums / teams holding cities hostage, but that's probably been had here before.
 
Last edited:
Please explain how Medicare and Medicaid have been useful in reducing the overall cost of healthcare.

Medicare/Medicaid do a better job of cost containment. So, containing, not reducing. In haste I chose my words poorly. Especially with healthcare companies merging to create verticals that drive conflicts of interest, etc. etc. And this is without the government being allowed to negotiate drug prices (another example of governmental interference in the market, i.e. a poorly structured system).
 
To be clear - I brought up only the socialist tendencies that undergird drive our own government's fiscal choices. Certainly there we can point to plenty of national successes in Europe if you really want to, but none are really as large or diverse as America is demographically. The point here is that there is a vast middle ground between socialism and not believing in government at all. Trump and his adherents are way over the line on the latter, which is why we are in the state that we are. People hate him for other reasons, I assure you, and your fear of socialism is fine and understandable, but we aren't going to become Sweden, or even Belgium, not in my lifetime. Let's balance effective government with good citizen corporatism and we'll all have a better 21st century.
 
Medicare/Medicaid do a better job of cost containment. So, containing, not reducing. In haste I chose my words poorly. Especially with healthcare companies merging to create verticals that drive conflicts of interest, etc. etc. And this is without the government being allowed to negotiate drug prices (another example of governmental interference in the market, i.e. a poorly structured system).
Medicare/Medicaid do a piss poor job of cost containment. Often what happens is the costs are shifted over to the private market which is why more and more providers are not taking Medicare/Medicaid patients, especially Medicaid. The administrative costs of those programs alone are huge. Never mind the increased costs that hospitals and providers incur just to comply with all of the Medicare/Medicaid regulations. They have to hire teams of medical coders just to figure out how to appropriately bill a claim. The only way to drive down healthcare cost is through the competitive forces of a free market, which we haven’t allowed in decades.
 
Last edited:
I mean - this is so obvious that if you need to hear it again, you're just looking for a fight. Corporate subsidies and tax breaks are class A socialism, but there is a limited benefit there I think we can agree. Indeed, corporate socialism doesn't trickle down, as we now know from decades of hoping it would. There are plenty of other examples of course. Roads. Airports. The social security and/or unemployment that most on this board seem to live on. Medicaid and Medicare are definite and unquestionably useful both in reducing the overall cost of healthcare and as a basic underpinning of a civil society. Etc.
Roads and airports aren't socialism.
 
Corporate tax breaks and subsidies aren't even close to socialism. When a government understands an employer investing in their community is a huge net positive and allows them to operate with minimal governmental interference and handicaps, you aren't even close to socialism.

The OP asked for a defense of socialism and you swerved towards crony capitalism which is a problem. Understanding investment dollars go where it's treated well isnt a problem at all.
Haven't laughed this hard in awhile. Thanks.
 
To be clear - I brought up only the socialist tendencies that undergird drive our own government's fiscal choices. Certainly there we can point to plenty of national successes in Europe if you really want to, but none are really as large or diverse as America is demographically. The point here is that there is a vast middle ground between socialism and not believing in government at all. Trump and his adherents are way over the line on the latter, which is why we are in the state that we are. People hate him for other reasons, I assure you, and your fear of socialism is fine and understandable, but we aren't going to become Sweden, or even Belgium, not in my lifetime. Let's balance effective government with good citizen corporatism and we'll all have a better 21st century.
Make no mistake Trump Baby and the Republicans in general only want less government when it suits their own personal interests. Cases in point: They use Big Government to block Medicare drug negotiations re Big Pharma so drug companies can reap billions of dollars in profits on the backs of ALL Americans. They oppose clean water rules so they can store polluting chemicals near our rivers in "ponds" or contaminate our water supply with runoff. They want to open up federal lands, parks, landmarks, to more oil / mineral exploration. The BS examples are endless from the Right. That's their definition of less government.
 
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.

Two questions:
  1. Please define which from of socialism you are looking for a response to.
  2. Using that definition, please share exactly how and why you feel the US is entirely superior to presumably socialist countries like Germany or France. Choosing a failed state like Venezuela that was almost entirely dependent on a single natural resource (oil) to drive economic output is disingenuous.
Happy to engage in that discussion once I know what we are actually debating.
 
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.
Funny. Karma is a bitch! "I'm voting in a national election against the worst candidate in our history and it doesn't matter who it is." Isn't this what the Trumpers used for rationale in '16 and still cling to a totally broken ideology in '20? Huh? There's absolutely nothing socialist about universal healthcare or fair taxes or the wealthy paying a fair share or EPA rules or a strong defense or Medicaid. Those programs have had BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT for decades. Stop being silly.
 
Two questions:
  1. Please define which from of socialism you are looking for a response to.
  2. Using that definition, please share exactly how and why you feel the US is entirely superior to presumably socialist countries like Germany or France. Choosing a failed state like Venezuela that was almost entirely dependent on a single natural resource (oil) to drive economic output is disingenuous.
Happy to engage in that discussion once I know what we are actually debating.
Forget it. Surprised if OP will answer.
 
Funny. Karma is a bitch! "I'm voting in a national election against the worst candidate in our history and it doesn't matter who it is." Isn't this what the Trumpers used for rationale in '16 and still cling to a totally broken ideology in '20? Huh? There's absolutely nothing socialist about universal healthcare or fair taxes or the wealthy paying a fair share or EPA rules or a strong defense or Medicaid. Those programs have had BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT for decades. Stop being silly.

You make a good point here - the semantics of this debate - for that is all it is - are everything to those who cry "socialism" only when it suits them.
 
There's a difference between a social program (roads, fire depression, police, schools, etc.) and socialism, but I think you understand this.

Right, strictly speaking it depends on who builds the roads and with whose equipment, doesn't it?But as a semantic argument - which this is, i.e. the OP was not speaking strictly - it's always a good shoehorn statement.

Basically, in a system where capital and the government are so strongly aligned (as in ours) these distinctions are shades of grey, and OPs should be asked to specify, as willdup has. But I was foolishly playing along.
 
Right, strictly speaking it depends on who builds the roads and with whose equipment, doesn't it?But as a semantic argument - which this is, i.e. the OP was not speaking strictly - it's always a good shoehorn statement.

Basically, in a system where capital and the government are so strongly aligned (as in ours) these distinctions are shades of grey, and OPs should be asked to specify, as willdup has. But I was foolishly playing along.
I don’t think you understand what Socialism is. Every society has a public component. The difference is the existence of a private sector or the amount of control over the private sector. In places like Cuba, almost nothing is private. In most European countries there is a distinction, but there is a heavier and sometimes much heavier reliance on Govt than the US. It sounds like you prefer the European model over the US. I don’t, and neither does any other person who immigrated from Eastern Europe or South/Central America.
 
Medicare/Medicaid do a better job of cost containment. So, containing, not reducing. In haste I chose my words poorly. Especially with healthcare companies merging to create verticals that drive conflicts of interest, etc. etc. And this is without the government being allowed to negotiate drug prices (another example of governmental interference in the market, i.e. a poorly structured system).
Medicare Medicaid don’t contain cost they shift it to those who aren’t on the program.
 
Here's a good one > broadband in Savannah. There was a movement afoot to lay broadband cable in Savannah - the city would do it - in order to foster business growth. Instead of the city doing it, the contract was awarded to Comcast, which now owns the fiber throughout. The good news here is that the city (or donors) didn't have to foot the bill. The bad news is that we are now stuck with Comcast.
I don’t think you understand what Socialism is. Every society has a public component. The difference is the existence of a private sector or the amount of control over the private sector. In places like Cuba, almost nothing is private. In most European countries there is a distinction, but there is a heavier and sometimes much heavier reliance on Govt than the US. It sounds like you prefer the European model over the US. I don’t, and neither does any other person who immigrated from Eastern Europe or South/Central America.

I do understand these distinctions. I prefer something close to the American system a little less occluded by plutocrats and transparent hand outs to capital, enriching same (at the expense of working people). I also think that there are things - public investments of scale (to include basic rights and public goods like health and education, the environment and some infrastructure) - that the government does better than capital will.
 
  • Like
Reactions: jparkbrannen
Two questions:
  1. Please define which from of socialism you are looking for a response to.
  2. Using that definition, please share exactly how and why you feel the US is entirely superior to presumably socialist countries like Germany or France. Choosing a failed state like Venezuela that was almost entirely dependent on a single natural resource (oil) to drive economic output is disingenuous.
Happy to engage in that discussion once I know what we are actually debating.
Tell that to the good people of Venezuela. It's funny how Venezuela was thriving (not that long ago) until... socialism. They went from being the wealthiest country in South America to being told when they could shop for food and eating their pets... and fleeing the country.
Socialism, like communism, looks great on paper.
Too bad they don't take human nature into account.
 
Tell that to the good people of Venezuela. It's funny how Venezuela was thriving (not that long ago) until... socialism. They went from being the wealthiest country in South America to being told when they could shop for food and eating their pets... and fleeing the country.
Socialism, like communism, looks great on paper.
Too bad they don't take human nature into account.
That is a tremendously simplistic description of Venezuela's problems. The primary problem they have is political corruption and incompetence in conjunction with failing oil prices and reduced oil production due to lack of investment. None of those issue are in any way unique to a socialist state.

My counterpoint is Norway. They also have a form a socialist government that is backstopped by a massive sovereign wealth fund created from north sea oil reserves. They have generally been well run and with eye toward medium to long term planning.

However, neither of those examples are particularly relevant to a discussion of US economic policy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: celticdawg
That is a tremendously simplistic description of Venezuela's problems. The primary problem they have is political corruption and incompetence in conjunction with failing oil prices and reduced oil production due to lack of investment. None of those issue are in any way unique to a socialist state.

My counterpoint is Norway. They also have a form a socialist government that is backstopped by a massive sovereign wealth fund created from north sea oil reserves. They have generally been well run and with eye toward medium to long term planning.

However, neither of those examples are particularly relevant to a discussion of US economic policy.
Is Norway's business controlled primarily by the private sector and private property?
5.3 - 5.4 million people in Norway also.
 
I assume you disagree with the concept of Corp bailouts, correct? I wouldn’t call that Socialism (although I oppose bailouts too), but the King was Obammy.
I could have sworn that was little bush who gave all the money to the banks.
 
Please, any of you left leaning guys that hate our President so much, show me a country that has benefited from a Socialist society. Please just one. The foundation that Biden and his team of anti American Socialists is a rotten one. None of you can get GITT and argue this and you know it.
Amen brother all they can do is hate on Trump because there is nothing good or American about that crowd
 
That is a tremendously simplistic description of Venezuela's problems. The primary problem they have is political corruption and incompetence in conjunction with failing oil prices and reduced oil production due to lack of investment. None of those issue are in any way unique to a socialist state.

My counterpoint is Norway. They also have a form a socialist government that is backstopped by a massive sovereign wealth fund created from north sea oil reserves. They have generally been well run and with eye toward medium to long term planning.

However, neither of those examples are particularly relevant to a discussion of US economic policy.
How many different cultures in Norway hell how many people have 10 babies by 4 different women in Norway
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT