(08-05-2020 06:15 PM)BartlettTigerFan Wrote:  You guys do know that universal healthcare means only the rich actually have any worth having?

Yeah, I'd like to pass on that one.

(08-05-2020 06:48 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  I'm not defending the politicians. I hate them. I'm probably voting Green Party this election, lol.

...and yet you're defending the National Socialist Democratic Party. I don't think you're voting for the Green, you're a Juan Williams through and through. But hey, that's your right, we STILL have that right. I don't know if we will after the Demons get into the WH and Congress. Poquito a poquito they'll change the way we live and then even you will be crying about it.

If you don't believe me ask those who fought alongside Fidel, Lenin, Maduro, etc. See how they like it now. LOL, serves them right.
[/quote]

I'm not defending them, I'm clarifying their positions. I never said I agree with their party leaders, who lean much more toward centrism than socialism.

(08-05-2020 06:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  On socialism:

The word means collective (government) control of means of production. That's it. That's the definition. So basically every country out there is, to some degree, socialist. How much so depends on how many economic sectors are government run, to what degree they are regulated, how many social programs are in place etc.

The point is that mainstream Dems and liberals are not even close to full blown socialists. There are a few congresspeople who are closer (and even a couple who self describe as such), but even radical old Bernie is mostly a center-lefty on the economy in most of the world's view (possible exception: Green New Deal is pretty far left stuff). And those are the handful on the left fringe of the Democratic Party.

There is no wholesale takeover of the private sector in sight. Every social program proposal does not mean we're going to turn into Venezuela if we let the Democrats win. That's an absurd notion. Democrats aren't even a very left-wing party compared to say, most of Europe. I know many of you may consider many European countries to be socialist, but the reality is that the majority of their economic sectors are capitalist as well.

So yes, when you have people asserting that the Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela, it shows one of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding or intentional disingenuous hyperbole (i.e. scare tactics).

You got it half right:

Quote:a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=socialism&oq=socialism&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.2606j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]Google search link to definition

I think the "or regulated' very much makes progressives into socialists.

Also, your proffered definition very much ignores one of the most prolific and wide reaching movements of the mid 20th century --- national socialism. The term 'socialism' in that context isnt a mistake, mind you.

You will also note that the more prominent national socialist governments of the mid 1900's very fundamentally did not 'own the means of production', they simply regulated economic activities (and social activities) with highly active government intervention and regulation --- not ownership.

I would suggest you actually read up on the term 'socialist' and exactly what it conveys.
[/quote]

If you think "or regulated" means Democrats are socialists, then every functioning government in the world is run by socialists.

Not gonna bother with the Nazi comparison.

I always thought the bickering of what the dictionary definition of 'socialist' is is a ploy to distract from discussing what Democrats & their voters actually want.

"No, we're not socialist. No country is socialist per the dictionary"

(08-05-2020 10:03 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 06:10 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 02:05 PM)wmubroncopilot Wrote:  On socialism:

The word means collective (government) control of means of production. That's it. That's the definition. So basically every country out there is, to some degree, socialist. How much so depends on how many economic sectors are government run, to what degree they are regulated, how many social programs are in place etc.

The point is that mainstream Dems and liberals are not even close to full blown socialists. There are a few congresspeople who are closer (and even a couple who self describe as such), but even radical old Bernie is mostly a center-lefty on the economy in most of the world's view (possible exception: Green New Deal is pretty far left stuff). And those are the handful on the left fringe of the Democratic Party.

There is no wholesale takeover of the private sector in sight. Every social program proposal does not mean we're going to turn into Venezuela if we let the Democrats win. That's an absurd notion. Democrats aren't even a very left-wing party compared to say, most of Europe. I know many of you may consider many European countries to be socialist, but the reality is that the majority of their economic sectors are capitalist as well.

So yes, when you have people asserting that the Democrats want to turn the US into Venezuela, it shows one of two things: a fundamental misunderstanding or intentional disingenuous hyperbole (i.e. scare tactics).

Quote:You got it half right:

Quote:a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

[url=https://www.google.com/search?q=socialism&oq=socialism&aqs=chrome.0.69i59.2606j0j8&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8]Google search link to definition

I think the "or regulated' very much makes progressives into socialists.

Also, your proffered definition very much ignores one of the most prolific and wide reaching movements of the mid 20th century --- national socialism. The term 'socialism' in that context isnt a mistake, mind you.

You will also note that the more prominent national socialist governments of the mid 1900's very fundamentally did not 'own the means of production', they simply regulated economic activities (and social activities) with highly active government intervention and regulation --- not ownership.

I would suggest you actually read up on the term 'socialist' and exactly what it conveys.

If you think "or regulated" means Democrats are socialists, then every functioning government in the world is run by socialists.

Not gonna bother with the Nazi comparison.

I would think that the very stark difference between progressive philosophy and conservative/libertarian philosophy, especially in term of economic activities, would be rather self-evident to such a sharp, discerning, and incisive person who can identify socialist ideals as yourself.

Not even mentioning the social issues in question.

And, any half wit who thinks that socialism is only defined by government control of production has to deal with the very obvious real world examples to the contrary.

And I see you are taking a strike down the middle of the plate on that. Congrats.

Edited to add: Next time try counting up the 'quote' thingies you remove from a response.

(08-05-2020 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, any half wit who thinks that socialism is only defined by government control of production has to deal with the very obvious real world examples to the contrary.

Well that's the point: everything's regulated, even the GOP likes some regulation......so what more is more regulation?

(08-05-2020 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, any half wit who thinks that socialism is only defined by government control of production has to deal with the very obvious real world examples to the contrary.

The operative question is, "How does socialism gain control of the means of production?"

The answer, in virtually every case, is that socialism starts by imposing massive redistribution of income and wealth in the name of "equality." The holders of wealth have three options--leave, resist, or give in. Few, if any, give in. The ones who can leave. That leaves the resisters, and that's why socialist governments need secret police--to take care of the resisters.

It has become fashionable for those who lean left to say that Venezuela didn't fail because of socialism, it failed because it became totally dependent on oil. Well, how did it become totally dependent on oil? When it started going socialist, everybody but oil got the heck out. Oil was the only thing that couldn't move--you kind of have to dig your wells where the oil is. So that's all they had left, and their oil is crap oil. When the world got oversupplied thanks to fracking, guess whose oil got shut in?

I have a friend who grew up on a ranch in what was then Rhodesia. When Mugabe took over, they had two problems--they were not only wealthy but white. His father chartered a 747 and flew his family, his possessions, and as many of his cattle as he could, out to Brazil. They got out in time. That's how far people have been willing to to, if they could afford it, to get away from socialism.

Looking at the USA, I am finding myself in an uncomfortable position of being well enough off that I will be on the losing end of any redistribution, but not wealthy enough just to pick up and leave. I certainly can't charter a 747 and fly all my loved ones and possessions out. And my situation is worse because as Ronald Regan noted, the USA is the last best hope of freedom and liberty--if we lose then there is nowhere else. Even if I could charter that 747, I don't have anywhere to tell it to land.

I am very, very worried about November 2020. I guess I can take some solace in the facts that it will take some time for us to get to where Zimbabwe is, and at my age I am very unlikely to live that long. I also have some hope that common sense will at some point prevail and we will realize that all these wonderful theoretical constructs are failing miserably, and we need to get back to what made us successful in the past. But people like AOC, and frankly Schumer and Pelosi and Biden, scare me. They are simply out of touch with reality. They live in a theoretical, academic world. And while in theory, theory works well in practice, in practice it doesn't.

I see democrats as being in a headlong rush to impose socialism on the USA, and I see republicans as doing little or nothing about it. Call me Not Optimistic Owl.

(08-06-2020 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-05-2020 10:29 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  And, any half wit who thinks that socialism is only defined by government control of production has to deal with the very obvious real world examples to the contrary.

The operative question is, "How does socialism gain control of the means of production?"

The answer, in virtually every case, is that socialism starts by imposing massive redistribution of income and wealth in the name of "equality." The holders of wealth have three options--leave, resist, or give in. Few, if any, give in. The ones who can leave. That leaves the resisters, and that's why socialist governments need secret police--to take care of the resisters.

It has become fashionable for those who lean left to say that Venezuela didn't fail because of socialism, it failed because it became totally dependent on oil. Well, how did it become totally dependent on oil? When it started going socialist, everybody but oil got the heck out. Oil was the only thing that couldn't move--you kind of have to dig your wells where the oil is. So that's all they had left, and their oil is crap oil. When the world got oversupplied thanks to fracking, guess whose oil got shut in?

I have a friend who grew up on a ranch in what was then Rhodesia. When Mugabe took over, they had two problems--they were not only wealthy but white. His father chartered a 747 and flew his family, his possessions, and as many of his cattle as he could, out to Brazil. They got out in time. That's how far people have been willing to to, if they could afford it, to get away from socialism.

Looking at the USA, I am finding myself in an uncomfortable position of being well enough off that I will be on the losing end of any redistribution, but not wealthy enough just to pick up and leave. I certainly can't charter a 747 and fly all my loved ones and possessions out. And my situation is worse because as Ronald Regan noted, the USA is the last best hope of freedom and liberty--if we lose then there is nowhere else. Even if I could charter that 747, I don't have anywhere to tell it to land.

I am very, very worried about November 2020. I guess I can take some solace in the facts that it will take some time for us to get to where Zimbabwe is, and at my age I am very unlikely to live that long. I also have some hope that common sense will at some point prevail and we will realize that all these wonderful theoretical constructs are failing miserably, and we need to get back to what made us successful in the past. But people like AOC, and frankly Schumer and Pelosi and Biden, scare me. They are simply out of touch with reality. They live in a theoretical, academic world. And while in theory, theory works well in practice, in practice it doesn't.

I see democrats as being in a headlong rush to impose socialism on the USA, and I see republicans as doing little or nothing about it. Call me Not Optimistic Owl.

I can't wait to read your 'thesis'....great post en macro summation!

been telling ya we see the same, we simply do it differently....

I'm okay with 'that'...

(08-06-2020 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see democrats as being in a headlong rush to impose socialism on the USA, and I see republicans as doing little or nothing about it. Call me Not Optimistic Owl.

Maybe I should talk a bit about what republicans should do.

First, republicans should return to being the party of Lincoln. Zero tolerance for white supremacists and the KKK. If you want to support me, I can't stop you, but make no mistake, I don't support you.

Second, see the democrats' class warfare game for what it is. They claim to be for the working middle class against the "rich" or "wealthy," but what they actually are is for the non-working welfare class against the middle class. Obamacare showed that, and got Trump elected in 2016. It's pretty easy to see that our welfare system is structured to keep people on welfare by making it hard to get out. Expose that, but don't just expose it, come up with a solution. That's the part republicans don't do.

Third, learn from Europe instead of going through a generation of making the same mistakes. They tried massive redistribution in the 1950s and 1960s and it didn't work. I remember being in Europe in 1973 and it was an incredibly depressing place. But they figured out that they could build a social safety net without driving away investment by restructuring their tax systems. First they learned about consumption taxes. Then, after Reaganomics showed them the way, they figured that they could lower and flatten income taxes. Few people realize this, but today the USA has higher individual and corporate income taxes than the average OECD country, and specifically higher than most of Europe. Sure, Sweden has a 60% top personal income tax rate, but their corporate rate, all in, is 22%, which is lower than ours when you include state taxes. Today, Europe offers both 1) a more comprehensive welfare safety net than we do, and 2) a more tax-efficient structure with which to attract investment and growth. They figured it out, we can too.

Fourth, get rid of the neocon ideas that conservative means extreme social conservatism coupled with aggressive foreign military intervention. Ending gay rights and reversing Roe v. Wade are not winning issues, primarily because they aren't possible. Social conservatives clearly aren't going to the democrats, and if Donald Trump has proved anything, it is that you don't have to go all the way on those issues to be better than the democrats, but don't make those your headline issues. And I'm sorry, but pushing military intervention in the Mideast is not strengthening our military. We're getting equipment destroyed, we're getting lives and limbs of young soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines destroyed, we're learning habits that won't work when faced with a peer enemy, and we're accomplishing basically nothing. Those folks fought each other for thousands of year before we got there, and they will fight each other for thousands of years after we leave.

Fifth, on some level, although perhaps not in open campaigning yet, realize that we are in Cold War II and this time the enemy is China, not Russia. If you want to be strong on defense, figure out how to beat China. If you want to be strong on foreign policy, figure out how to stop China. We won Cold War I because Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Soviet advances into Europe, and then Reagan put pressure on the Soviet economy and brought down the Evil Empire. The same game plan will work again, bribe up an alliance around the first island chain--Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Philippines, Taiwan--to go with the Quad--USA, Japan, Australia, India--and add in South Korea. When that is in place, China's economy is threatened by two possibilities--cutting off their exports, and cutting off their oil supply. That puts pressure on their economy, and since they are a collection of people who don't like each other--the warlike north hates the capitalistic Yangtze River Valley, including Shanghai, and the Cantonese south hates both of them, not to mention Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs in the west--without the strong economy they will fall apart.

The best thing Republicans can do is removing the RINOs & putting true conservatives in office.

(08-06-2020 09:35 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The best thing Republicans can do is removing the RINOs & putting true conservatives in office.

you can wave buh bye to our mayor and governor next go-round....

RINOS BE GONE

(08-06-2020 09:35 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The best thing Republicans can do is removing the RINOs & putting true conservatives in office.

But who are the RINOs and who are the true conservatives?

You are in Grand Rapids. That's kind of a center of what I consider to be true conservative thought.

To me the RINOs are the neocons--democrats who were pro-war and against the sex and drugs revolutions of the 1960s, so they switched parties, people like Irving Kristol. They don't have historically conservative or republican values.

(08-06-2020 09:54 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2020 09:35 AM)Bronco14 Wrote:  The best thing Republicans can do is removing the RINOs & putting true conservatives in office.

But who are the RINOs and who are the true conservatives?

You are in Grand Rapids. That's kind of a center of what I consider to be true conservative thought.

To me the RINOs are the neocons--democrats who were pro-war and against the sex and drugs revolutions of the 1960s, so they switched parties, people like Irving Kristol. They don't have historically conservative or republican values.

your frustration does not go unnoticed, pal...

it's why I continually poundcake #DJTexperiment...

right or wrong, that's where I camp in '3rd party'. ...

(08-06-2020 09:26 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(08-06-2020 08:18 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I see democrats as being in a headlong rush to impose socialism on the USA, and I see republicans as doing little or nothing about it. Call me Not Optimistic Owl.

Fifth, on some level, although perhaps not in open campaigning yet, realize that we are in Cold War II and this time the enemy is China, not Russia. If you want to be strong on defense, figure out how to beat China. If you want to be strong on foreign policy, figure out how to stop China. We won Cold War I because Truman bribed up an alliance to stop Soviet advances into Europe, and then Reagan put pressure on the Soviet economy and brought down the Evil Empire. The same game plan will work again, bribe up an alliance around the first island chain--Malaysia, Singapore, Indonesia, Brunei, Philippines, Taiwan--to go with the Quad--USA, Japan, Australia, India--and add in South Korea. When that is in place, China's economy is threatened by two possibilities--cutting off their exports, and cutting off their oil supply. That puts pressure on their economy, and since they are a collection of people who don't like each other--the warlike north hates the capitalistic Yangtze River Valley, including Shanghai, and the Cantonese south hates both of them, not to mention Tibet and the Muslim Uighurs in the west--without the strong economy they will fall apart.

Well thought out and articulated plan and I agree. As to the fifth point, although I agree with all of it, we've been in a cold war with China for a long time, although we didn't realize or recognize it. The Chinese knew exactly what they were doing. They have their tentacles all throughout the U.S., in business, industry, academia and government, and land acquisitions.

The only problem I see is that the GOP has too many lightweights who rarely say or do anything. For your plan to work, it needs leadership which seems to be sorely lacking. Hence, the evil party vs the stupid party moniker fits.

Great post, Owl. I agree too with your definition of RINO as neocons.