• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ocasio-Cortez, at SXSW, blasts FDR, Reagan and capitalism, says political moderates are 'meh'

Abbazorkzog said:
Don't act stupid, you know very well what it is you are doing, and everyone else does as well. I also like how you're acting like profit-prisons aren't somehow legalized slavery, and yet you continue to meekly defer to them in contemptible servility.
Click to expand...

We are not discussing those. they are irrelevant to the discussions.
we are discussing who wanted stronger and tougher laws on crack.

the people that wanted it were black leaders. they were tired of crack ravaging
their neighborhoods and families.

prisons etc have nothing to do with it. Please show me where i argued anything that you just said?
i said nothing about it.
 
Conservative said:
Anyone familiar with history would know that people like AOC led to the birth of Communism and Socialism and we all know the end results of both. She is appealing to the fringe radicals but unfortunately a growing number of malcontents that buy the rhetoric and ignore the end results. All one needs to do is look at Venezuela now
Click to expand...

I mean, if there are enough "malcontents" to support and vote for these sorts of philosophies we should probably wonder how we ended up with so many people malcontent-ed in the first place.
 
Obscurity said:
No, we can't, because republicans veil affluence worship under the guise of the "american dream."

These rich folks are not to be praised. They have destroyed our economy, divided our classes, demolished profit shares and other incentives that made working class americans have upward mobility, etc.

The conservative portion of this country is acting hand over fist in this worship of affluence, and we need to tear down this veil and show it for what it truly is.
Click to expand...

Hard to disagree with those points.

The amazing con, many Republicans have been able to play....is convincing people who would be helped tremendously by these programs, to vote AGAINST them, as they have been able to paint Democrats as godless baby killers, who want to take their guns, raise their taxes, and turn America into Venezuela. Sadly, it has been working for nearly 3 decades.

I see it, and read it on these types of forums often.
 
Obscurity said:
I'm not confused. One does not need to socialize all aspects of the market. Stop thinking in terms of black and white. The world is very gray.
Click to expand...

I never said all aspects. I said public ownership of the means of production. That can be any form of market. Also, you should stop using the word market and economy interchangeably, as the economy is made of up many different markets.

This doesn't change the fact that Democratic Socialism wants public ownership over the means of production, whether directly or indirectly.

Socializing the costs of insurance by eliminating the bloated and absurd insurance market and replacing it with single payer is our only option to go forward. One does not need to socialize the cost of chocolate bars.
Click to expand...

You can never eliminate cost; you can only shift them from one party to another. Which is why I suspect one will never get a proper answer on how they plan on accomplishing this from a socialist sympathizer./
 
Hedgology said:
The EU economic system is all capitalist. There are no forms of Democratic Socialism. Democratic socialism advocates that a revolution should bring the means of production under the control of the proletariat. That is not what is occurring anywhere in the EU.

As for the definition of pure Socialism, it's the same as Democratic Socialism, except the means of production are state owned. Some people see that as a major difference; however, control is merely shifted from one unqualified authority from many different unqualified authorities.
Click to expand...

There are regulations on industries in the US due to political morals (and you say there aren't in the EU?). For example, the latest debate over building more of a southern border wall involved political morals. Congress didn't appropriate more for the wall in large part because building the wall was politically immoral.
 
Thoreau72 said:
Yes, and the conscience and actions of the humans running the system.

As MLK noted, we live in a time of guided missiles controlled by unguided men.
Click to expand...

I think a good argument could be made, the system is the bigger problem.

And getting the foxes to lock up the hen house is a very big ask.


We could do it through the states. History shows, when enough states pass laws to make changes, DC eventually follows.
 
Obscurity said:
I'm not advocating for governmental control of production. Nor is Bernie Sanders. Nor is Tulsi Gabbard. Nor is AOC.
Click to expand...

yet that is what soclism is. Where the government controls the means of production.

Business owners have systematically reduced benefits for employees throughout the years. No one is saying you have to offer benefits like profit sharing. But do not presume to tell me you are worthy of recognition for simply "creating jobs" when those jobs don't A. Pay a wage that is good enough to support employees without needing a welfare system in place to care for them thanks to your ****ty salary offerings and B. Do anything but enrich yourself.
Click to expand...

it is there company if you don't like it then you are free to go work for someone else. No one forces you to work for 1 company forever.
the CEO of walmart makes 22m. walmart employee 2.2 million people congrats you gave everyone 10 dollars.
they are so happy.

****ty people open businesses all the time and pay ****ty wages. No one is saying you can't do that.
Click to expand...

pay is dependent on the position that you are opening. If i am opening another fast food place and i am paying 10 bucks and hour
then those people are making good money for their position. when i have 300m people that can take fries out of a fryer you don't really
get much leverage on pay.

My argument is that you shouldn't do that. Because it proliferates a welfare state, it dilutes the employment pool. Competition goes both ways. If employers see other employers removing profit shares as a benefit, and they're one of the few who remain doing so, they have no real incentive to keep offering this benefit. Because if no one offers it, then that's not a competition they need to engage in.
Click to expand...

A business can't pay more than what the position is worth nor can it pay more than what you can make.

Your employees also have skin in the game. Plenty of employees -require- the job, not just be "willing to accept it." Alot of employees put their heart and souls into "your business" - yet, you reward them how? Underpayment, no benefits, no stakes.
Click to expand...

If they want to pay for part of an investment and take on part of the risk then they have skin in the game.
Other than that we have a consensual contract that they will work for X for over Y hours. if they don't like
that contract then they are free to look elsewhere. I am not going to pay obscene wages that I simply can't pay.

So by all means, continue being a ****ty employer because you can - that doesn't mean you should, and by all means, you ought to be outed to the public for your ****ty employment schemes if you do **** your employees over so you can buy a second house or fifth car.
Click to expand...

appeal to emotion argument.

Yawn. Why would I invest in my employer when my employer has systemically acted to reduce benefits for myself? What incentive do I have? Further investment enriches an overall ****ty person. I dislike enriching ****ty people. Don't you?
Click to expand...

Then quit your job.


I'll discuss the merits of capitalism over socialism and vice versa all day. We can even nuance it down to communism, fascism, capitalism, socialism, democratic socialism, if you'd like. The issue though is I doubt you would be honest enough to do it.
Click to expand...

we know you aren't honest. you have established that already.
 
Hedgology said:
You can never eliminate cost; you can only shift them from one party to another. Which is why I suspect one will never get a proper answer on how they plan on accomplishing this from a socialist sympathizer./
Click to expand...

No one ever said eliminate all cost. I said eliminate the absurd and bloated insurance market, which will automatically reduce cost. Cost can overall be reduced for all parties involved; that is the ultimate goal, coverage for all, at less cost - not no cost - for all.
 
Obscurity said:
No, we can't, because republicans veil affluence worship under the guise of the "american dream."

These rich folks are not to be praised. They have destroyed our economy, divided our classes, demolished profit shares and other incentives that made working class americans have upward mobility, etc.

The conservative portion of this country is acting hand over fist in this worship of affluence, and we need to tear down this veil and show it for what it truly is.
Click to expand...

Check out the latest economic report for the US.. Minority hiring in some instances is the highest in the history of the US. You wanna try again? Unless you want everyone to have the same in which you'd be advocating for pure communism.
 
Cramer said:
The Scandinavian countries do use a flat tax system, vs our progressive tax system.

We also have a much larger population that earns higher incomes than those in the other mentioned countries..

We could keep the progressive system in place, keeping taxes relatively lower for middle/working class, and progressively raise taxes on the upper classes.

VAT taxes could also be used on luxury items that generally only the wealthy purchase.

We borrow billions to fund defense. We could move some of those dollars as well.
We could also borrow if needed, when times got lean.

The ROI on Single payer, free college education/trade schools and improved infrastructure would also help pay for it as well.

Again, we can do this if we want to.
Click to expand...

Sorry, the rich simply do not have enough money to do what you want. As I said, "we" can "want" to do the mathematically impossible all day long. It'll still be mathematically impossible.

You want Scandinavia, you tax like Scandinavia.
 
ludin said:
yet that is what soclism is. Where the government controls the means of production.
Click to expand...

And, no one is advocating that, despite the repeated bleating of folks like you and others who consume faux news.

ludin said:
it is there company if you don't like it then you are free to go work for someone else. No one forces you to work for 1 company forever. the CEO of walmart makes 22m. walmart employee 2.2 million people congrats you gave everyone 10 dollars. they are so happy.
Click to expand...

The "go work for someone else" argument ignores the counter productive nature of competition when it comes to reducing employer cost by cutting benefits, which you completely ignored (as usual, I will note.)

It also ignores that alot of americans work in areas where employment options are limited. Coupled with vastly bloated housing prices country wide, and you have a real issue of fluid mobility on your hands. I'd like this and the point above addressed.

ludin said:
pay is dependent on the position that you are opening. If i am opening another fast food place and i am paying 10 bucks and hour then those people are making good money for their position. when i have 300m people that can take fries out of a fryer you don't really get much leverage on pay.
Click to expand...

So, pay is dependent on position, not employee skill, is that correct? Thank you for being honest; the truth finally comes out. You don't get a raise, despite being awesome, because I've only earmarked X dollars for X position, and you can leave if you don't like it!

Sort of diminishes the argument you guys make about the labor market and demanding pay for your own skill, right? Or, should this employee simply leave for another job which may or may not exist in their home town? How many large employers do you think exist in the average american town?

ludin said:
A business can't pay more than what the position is worth nor can it pay more than what you can make.
Click to expand...

Again, you're tying salary to a position, which diminishes the value a laborer can demand for their skill set. This is the opposite of a free market. Can you elaborate?

ludin said:
If they want to pay for part of an investment and take on part of the risk then they have skin in the game. Other than that we have a consensual contract that they will work for X for over Y hours. if they don't like
that contract then they are free to look elsewhere. I am not going to pay obscene wages that I simply can't pay.
Click to expand...

I'm not advocating for obscene wages. I'm not even entirely decided on what I think of minimum wage, for what it's worth. The primary issue in my mind when it comes to minimum wage is the disparity between income and how much housing costs in this country. Real estate is overvalued.

ludin said:
appeal to emotion argument.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitir.

ludin said:
Then quit your job.
Click to expand...

Non-sequitir.


ludin said:
we know you aren't honest. you have established that already.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who doesn't know what democrats are actually advocating for.

Yes, your credibility is solid!
 
Cramer said:
Incorrect.

SS is an insurance policy. It was also to be one of the 3 parts of retirement. Pensions, savings/equity from the home, and SS.

Pensions hardly exist any longer, being replaced by 401k's. (this cost corps less, and wall street gets to make a fortune off of fees, paid by, individuals. (for the most part)
Click to expand...

Yes, you are incorrect. Nothing I said is wrong and nothing you provided shows that it is.

Social Security was meant to be a supplement to your own earned retirement/savings, not to retire off of.


Cramer said:
Without SS, my disabled sister would have to rely on family, friends or charity for housing, food, healthcare and other necessities. She is able to live a decent, but very frugal life...thanks to SS. She has never worked a "real" job in her life.

What is you solution for people like her, if you eliminate SS?
Click to expand...
Neither I or society have to have a solution to your problems. You do. And you should provide for your own before the government ever steps in to help.
 
cabse5 said:
Check out the latest economic report for the US.. Minority hiring in some instances is the highest in the history of the US. You wanna try again? Unless you want everyone to have the same in which you'd be advocating for pure communism.
Click to expand...

I don't care about how many people get hired if those jobs aren't good paying jobs that carry benefits. These jobs, like Wally World and others, proliferate the welfare state by underpaying workers and artificially enriching job creators by diluting the value of labor with set salaries per position, instead of laborer skill.
 
ludin said:
why can you not argue the point? why do you have to strawman?
Facts are facts. black leaders wanted to get tougher laws on the crack epidemic.
however crack was a favorite use of drugs among black while meth was for poor
whites. poor whites were not buying cocaine. both carry the same sentencing structure.
Click to expand...

It is more nuanced than what you are portraying.
It is true, some members of the Black Caucus supported tougher penalties for drug offenders. There was a very vocal pastor in NY that did as well. But as time passed, black leaders and politicians have realized it was a mistake, and have started to roll back those sentencing laws.

"The drug war was motivated by racial politics, not drug crime. The drug war was launched as a way of trying to appeal to poor and working-class white voters, as a way to say, 'We're going to get tough on them, put them back in their place.' And 'them' was not-so-subtly defined as African-Americans." Michelle Alexander — author of the best-selling book The New Jim Crow
Click to expand...

eventually, even some of the staunchest supporters of mandatory minimums saw that these policies had badly backfired, in part because they lumped addicts and small-time dealers with drug kingpins and violent gang leaders. And they also consigned countless African-American men to prisons across the country.
Click to expand...




The Shift In Black Views Of The War On Drugs : Code Switch : NPR
 
Harshaw said:
Sorry, the rich simply do not have enough money to do what you want. As I said, "we" can "want" to do the mathematically impossible all day long. It'll still be mathematically impossible.

You want Scandinavia, you tax like Scandinavia.
Click to expand...

You are stating an opinion.

Unless you have some data to back it up.
 
Excon said:
Yes, you are incorrect. Nothing I said is wrong and nothing you provided shows that it is.

Social Security was meant to be a supplement to your own earned retirement/savings, not to retire off of.
Click to expand...

You omit the part that pensions were part of the equation, that in reality, no longer exists.

And not all companies even offer a 401k.


Neither I or society have to have a solution to your problems. You do. And you should provide for your own before the government ever steps in to help.
Click to expand...

Out of many, one, is a term conservatives conveniently forget. It is one of the principles our country was founded upon. That was our "de facto motto" from our founding....before the religious right got Eisenhower to change it. I like Ike, but prefer Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Hamilton's (etc) views on this. It is still on our currency.
 
Aristaeus said:
You guys are f*cking obsessed with her.
Click to expand...

And they can't even refute what she says, just the usual dumb right wing deflections to socialism and communism.

Since Reaganism, the country has been going down. Poverty rates high, absurd wealth inequality, more and more people with no svaing, living paycheck to paycheck, the list goes on and on.
 
Cramer said:
My initial guess, w/out looking was a music festival.

Google confirmed that guess. There still is a mesic festival as well, including on regarding film.

The "interactive" portion has been going on for quite a while as well.

Of course, SXSW music festival, did bring us Hanson....and John Mayer, so there is that.
Click to expand...

Yes, a music festival that later expanded. I hate politics infecting everything.
 
Ikari said:
I mean, if there are enough "malcontents" to support and vote for these sorts of philosophies we should probably wonder how we ended up with so many people malcontent-ed in the first place.
Click to expand...

The slow march to socialism continues with more gov't spending on social programs and the buying of votes creating dependence.
 
Conservative said:
The slow march to socialism continues with more gov't spending on social programs and the buying of votes creating dependence.
Click to expand...

I mean, it's a nice platitude. But if so many people are going to embrace something so different, there must be a reason they have been made so discontented with what currently exists.
 
Cramer said:
You omit the part that pensions were part of the equation, that in reality, no longer exists.
Click to expand...
Not at all. What do you think the retirement I spoke to was? Just what you saved on your own? I can see how you took it that way because of how I worded it, but no.
I intended for retirement (as in earned pension) to be separate from the money one saved on their own for their retirement to which social security was intended as a supplement.


For some odd reason idiots today think an entry level position is supposed to provide them with everything.
Those idiots need to be disabused of that notion.


Cramer said:
And not all companies even offer a 401k.
Click to expand...
Irrelevant.
That does not stop a person from investing their own income for their own future. Except for perhaps the lazy and those who want a nanny state.


Cramer said:
Out of many, one, is a term conservatives conveniently forget. It is one of the principles our country was founded upon. That was our "de facto motto" from our founding....before the religious right got Eisenhower to change it. I like Ike, but prefer Jefferson, Adams, Washington, and Hamilton's (etc) views on this. It is still on our currency
Click to expand...
Your failure to understand the meaning, and how it doesn't apply to your individual responsibilities, has absolutely nothing to do with this discussion.


 
Ikari said:
I mean, it's a nice platitude. But if so many people are going to embrace something so different, there must be a reason they have been made so discontented with what currently exists.
Click to expand...

there certainly is, STUPIDITY and indoctrination into believing that someone else is responsible for ones own personal responsibility issues
 
Cramer said:
You are stating an opinion.
Click to expand...

Math is not an opinion.

Data:

For 2017, the total combined income in the United States was about $17 trillion.

If you consider incomes of more than $250K a year, "rich," they account for 24.1% of total income, which means their total income was about $4.1 trillion.

The entire US budget for FY 2017 was $3.982 trillion.

Which means, WITHOUT all the additional spending required by what you want, taxing everyone above $250K a year at 100% would barely cover what we spend now. That's taking every penny from everyone making over $250K. (And . . . do you really consider people making only $250K "rich"?)

Now add in everything new you want. You can supply those numbers yourself.

They do not have enough money to do what you want.
 
Excon said:
Irrelevant.
That does not stop a person from investing their own income for their own future. Except for perhaps the lazy and those who want a nanny state.
Click to expand...

I think this is nihilistic and dismissive. For one, we lack real education around economics in this nation. Not everyone is taught how and why a 401k for retirement is necessary. There are a multitude of reasons for this failing, but blaming it on lazy folks who want a nanny gov't is a little disingenuous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom