This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
You didn't get your $1200 yet did you?
If I did I would just add it to my 100k shares of CYDY. You obviously are out of your league.
So you think the reaction to helping corporations are the same as helping citizens?
Exactly, but citizens are not taking responsibility enough to elect public officials that have their best interests as a goal. Things are changing slowly but this transfer of wealth again in 12 years will speed things up. The system hinders this progess but it's getting so egregious that revolution is not far out, hopefully its peaceful and through education and voting.
change is farther away than Jetson cars.
"Well, I paid into the system, not like everyone else who is just a freeloader".
I am not sure can you help me out?
Well since you want to be insincere about it and you actually do know the definition, please, explain to me what you think the definition of socialism is.
Nope, not going on that fishing trip.BladeRunner said:
You were the one bragging that you knew what it meant. I was just asking you to regale us with your knowledge of socialism.
Both are created by laws not federal statues.jon_mx said:
It’s as if we don’t value education or basic necessary functions like firefighting or police. That’s what they are potentially impacting when you keep passsing Coronavirus aid bills and still don’t fund the states.
The GOP and Dem definitions BOTH change with the wind...just watch BladeRunner at work if anyone takes his stinky bait.
Why is it stinky bait to define what you are talking about? Strictly speaking socialism is a central government that owns and controls the means of production, distribution, and exchange of goods and services. That is pretty rare and no real success stories to speak of. But there are pieces which are socialistic. We could probably agree the postal service is a piece of our economy which is socialism. As well as fire, police, public schools, and even the military. Where we go off the rails a bit is calling every government action socialism. A huge issue to Socialists is income inequity and seeking means to more evenly distribute wealth including heavily taxing the rich and providing more welfare to the poor. So wealth distribution is often called socialism because it seeks to correct what it sees as the evil of capitalism. I would probably call that socialistic policies.
Oh, you aren't familiar with his work...got it. I generally stick to the textbook when it comes to socialism. We don't have actual socialism in this country IMO, outside of our military. However, some here, BladeRunner included, will tell you that the public school system is not "socialism" but will label an additional four years of college as "socialism". He also rejects the notion that fire, police, etc are "socialism". I agree with the bold (especially since I don't believe much outside our military could be close to actual socialism). As has been mentioned in various other conversations, what is going on right now with all these "stimulus checks" would be need to be considered socialism if one acknowledges the definitions they've previously set, but that's not the case. For unexplained reasons, this is different.
This is the stinky bait.
The principle philosophy here, I don't disagree with. I simply disagree with the components used. So, for me, the dollar amounts don't matter. It could be $1 or $500 or $5,000,000. Ignoring the textbook definition and going with "what socialism really means in today's terms", I'd suggest that any time a group of people get a "cut" that then falls on the backs of another group of people, that's socialism. Any time people get an "increase" and the slack of that "increase" isn't picked up by the rest, that's also socialism. So, to me, when taxes are slashed for the really rich and it's left to the rest of the country's tax payers in the form of "national debt/deficits", that's a socialistic move. When taxes are raised ONLY on the rich, that too is socialistic, IF those tax dollars aren't simply spent on "stuff" rather than paying down the debt. If those dollars raised by increasing taxes are simply spent on other stuff, then it becomes "raising taxes on people to buy more stuff"....that's not really socialistic IMO. That's just irresponsibility being paid for by the rich.
I like this post. I think maybe we could have a broader discussion on this. Maybe I need to step back and re-think some of my positions.
Because that's how it works in Corporate Socialism.
I'm willing to engage with anyone and everyone if they are coming from an honest place.
This was discussed in the thread about the bill itself....all of it. I'm definitely in favor of the "bubble up" approach here...always have been. And an argument over the "semantics" would be a huge step in the right direction...we aren't close to genuine positions for them to qualify as semantics at this point.
