Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast
Results 231 to 240 of 253

Thread: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

  1. #231
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,066

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by CharisRose View Post
    Not if the heath care is...

    1.One size fits all.
    2.Forced
    3.Exclusive
    4.Under complete control of the government.

    I would like to see creative ideas using the private sector as the main source of health care.

    Government being the last resort for a back up to the private sector.

    I would completely rule our Single Payer Government controlled health care.

    Why? The following link is my answer.

    Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans | The Heritage Foundation

    The Heritage Foundation Sep 26th, 2018 Commentary By:

    Meridian M. Paulton Research Assistant in Domestic Policy Studies

    Robert E. Moffit, Ph.D. Senior Fellow

    Title: Why Single-Payer Would Make Health Care Worse for Americans

    Did you know?

    Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA?

    Is there a medical doctor shortage in the USA? - Quora

    Is Medical School Worth it Financially? – BestMedicalDegrees.com

    The Deceptive Salary of Doctors – BestMedicalDegrees.com

    Roseann

    There is no historical example (that I can find) of for profit free market health care that provides affordable health care for all of it's citizens.

    Dems believe it is more important to get everyone covered, than to get part of the population covered better.

    No system is perfect, keep that in mind. Medicare has worked very well for me, so I'm not seeing what the problem is with it.

    I don't trust any right wing think tank for such solutions. There are just as many persons of letters on the opposite side of this argument. I've met doctors for, and against, a public option.

    Moreover, the right seems to make a boogeyman out of government, but the right has no problem with government run police, fire, defense. education ( well, some do) or the Naval Hospital. They always point to the VA as what the inevitable result that medicare for all would be. The two are completely different models.

    As for "one size fits all", I"m not for that either. There is a population that do not get employer covered plans, and I believe a public option is the best solution, medicare for anyone who wants it, paid for by taxes.
    Last edited by OscarLevant; 02-11-19 at 01:59 AM.
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

    Atomic weapons do not kill people, people kill people.

  2. #232
    Professor
    CharisRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,613

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    There is no historical example (that I can find) of for profit free market health care that provides affordable health care for all of it's citizens.

    Dems believe it is more important to get everyone covered, than to get part of the population covered better.

    No system is perfect, keep that in mind. Medicare has worked very well for me, so I'm not seeing what the problem is with it.

    I don't trust any right wing think tank for such solutions. There are just as many persons of letters on the opposite side of this argument. I've met doctors for, and against, a public option.

    Moreover, the right seems to make a boogeyman out of government, but the right has no problem with government run police, fire, defense. education ( well, some do) or the Naval Hospital. They always point to the VA as what the inevitable result that medicare for all would be. The two are completely different models.

    As for "one size fits all", I"m not for that either. There is a population that do not get employer covered plans, and I believe a public option is the best solution, medicare for anyone who wants it, paid for by taxes.
    1. Maybe some day... if all of the politicians AKA "servants of the People" kept their political ambitions out of their service to the people.
    (getting elected/re-elected via telling the citizens simple talking points that they think will get them elected/reelected via the use of poll results).

    Those servants could use their combined intellectual abilities for the good of the People that they serve via representation...

    And be the first nation to accomplish that goal.

    Instead of using Health Care as a political football via keeping it in play for political gamesmanship.

    2. The Democrat Socialist Party is not the same as the Traditional Democrat Party AKA Dems. When you use the word Dems, I think of the Traditional party that seems to have lost control to DemSocs and have joined in or are pretending to join in with the DemSos to try and keep up the illusion that the Democratic Party is an United Party.

    3. I knew that prior to your statement that I should keep in mind that no system is perfect.

    Medicare may be working very well for you currently.

    keep in mind that there is currently a limited number of people being served within that system.

    Now let's add the All who are currently not being served within that system to the ALL who are currently being served within that system.

    You may be surprised that the service you are currently receiving may suffer from the addition of ALL those people who have been added in line with you for service.

    You used the word citizen at the beginning of the post.

    Where do ALL of the non-citizens fit into this equation? Will, they also be in competition with ALL of the citizens for service?

    4. I provided that information for the reader(s) to read and decide for themselves the quality of that information.

    5. The right thinks the governments power should be limited. Via the idea that the more power we relinquish to the government, the more power they want, the more power they take and the power of the People deteriorates and we have less power and freedom to make choices for ourselves.

    Governments are not productive. Governments are unproductive.

    They are Powerful takers and distributors of The Peoples productivity.

    They do not work within a Budget. They have continually kicked that can down the road for years.

    They spend our tax payer money on a multitude of stupid things while they keep important things undone which they use as political footballs via keeping those important things undone while they keep promising when campaigning for re-election to accomplish those important things we say we need.

    6. They have for years been using the one size fits all... easy way out.

    Maybe, some day ALL of our Representatives will actually work hard and use their combined intellectual abilities to accomplish some results that actually benefit "We the People".

    I have been listening to and reading about all of the Democrat Socialists talking point promises without any substantive information on how they will actually accomplish those goals. AKA Pipe Dreams.

    Trump has actually accomplished goals that have helped Citizens, in spite of the fact that he has had continual resistance from members of the combined political parties.

    His Big League Ego and his not being a politician may actually continue to benefit more peoples needs based on the fact that the more goals that braggart achieves the more he can continue to boast about those accomplishments and show off for all of his resistors.

    The man is all about winning and that seems to motivate him.

    Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

    imho Roseann

  3. #233
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,066

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by CharisRose View Post
    1. Maybe some day... if all of the politicians AKA "servants of the People" kept their political ambitions out of their service to the people.
    (getting elected/re-elected via telling the citizens simple talking points that they think will get them elected/reelected via the use of poll results).

    Those servants could use their combined intellectual abilities for the good of the People that they serve via representation...

    And be the first nation to accomplish that goal.

    [...]

    2. The Democrat Socialist Party is not the same as the Traditional Democrat Party AKA Dems. When you use the word Dems, I think of the Traditional party that seems to have lost control to DemSocs and have joined in or are pretending to join in with the DemSos to try and keep up the illusion that the Democratic Party is an United Party.

    3. I knew that prior to your statement that I should keep in mind that no system is perfect.

    Medicare may be working very well for you currently.

    keep in mind that there is currently a limited number of people being served within that system.

    Now let's add the All who are currently not being served within that system to the ALL who are currently being served within that system.

    You may be surprised that the service you are currently receiving may suffer from the addition of ALL those people who have been added in line with you for service.

    You used the word citizen at the beginning of the post.

    Where do ALL of the non-citizens fit into this equation? Will, they also be in competition with ALL of the citizens for service?

    4. I provided that information for the reader(s) to read and decide for themselves the quality of that information.

    5. The right thinks the governments power should be limited. Via the idea that the more power we relinquish to the government, the more power they want, the more power they take and the power of the People deteriorates and we have less power and freedom to make choices for ourselves.

    Governments are not productive. Governments are unproductive.

    They are Powerful takers and distributors of The Peoples productivity.

    They do not work within a Budget. They have continually kicked that can down the road for years.

    They spend our tax payer money on a multitude of stupid things while they keep important things undone which they use as political footballs via keeping those important things undone while they keep promising when campaigning for re-election to accomplish those important things we say we need.

    6. They have for years been using the one size fits all... easy way out.

    Maybe, some day ALL of our Representatives will actually work hard and use their combined intellectual abilities to accomplish some results that actually benefit "We the People".

    I have been listening to and reading about all of the Democrat Socialists talking point promises without any substantive information on how they will actually accomplish those goals. AKA Pipe Dreams.

    Trump has actually accomplished goals that have helped Citizens, in spite of the fact that he has had continual resistance from members of the combined political parties.

    His Big League Ego and his not being a politician may actually continue to benefit more peoples needs based on the fact that the more goals that braggart achieves the more he can continue to boast about those accomplishments and show off for all of his resistors.

    The man is all about winning and that seems to motivate him.

    Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

    imho Roseann


    I don't agree with you that governments are not productive. Is the police non productive? Is the fire deparment non productive? Is the EPA non productive, was the Consumer Protection Agency non productive? And, I could go on.

    the problem with government isn't the government, it is bigness. I worked for a multinational company and they had many of the problems of bigness that government has. Committee management, deadwood in the ranks, office politics, etc. If medicare has to suffer a bit because of bigness, so that everyone is covered, I'm okay with that, though I'm not convinced it will. It might, it might not. The IRS seems to manage okay serving the entire nation.


    My use of "citizen" will include anyone who has the permanent legal right to live here. They work, they pay taxes, though should, therefore, have the same rights as citizens. It takes years to obtain citizenship,( and it takes a while to achieve permanent legal residence) but during that time, do they surrender their rights when they work just as hard, and pay the same taxes, as citizens? Note that I said "permanent legal right" Note that these people are covered by the Constitution, as well. Many who are in the military are such persons. A good section of the navy are Filipinos who joined at Subic Bay. That is my view.
    Last edited by OscarLevant; 02-12-19 at 12:25 PM.
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

    Atomic weapons do not kill people, people kill people.

  4. #234
    User RooseveltTruman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:18 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    134

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    I think Democrats shoot themselves in the foot when they refer to their policies or themselves as "socialist." The majority of these people, it seems, just want social democracy, which not the same thing as socialism/democratic socialism (which has already been pointed out on this thread, I believe). Socialism is when all the businesses in a country are either owned by the government or worker collectives. Not very many people want that, and, to be honest, it probably doesn't work in practice. These "socialists" would be so much more marketable if they branded themselves properly as social democrats (social democracy is capitalism with high taxes, a strong welfare system, etc., what the Nordic nations have).

  5. #235
    Professor
    CharisRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,613

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    I don't agree with you that governments are not productive. Is the police non productive? Is the fire deparment non productive? Is the EPA non productive, was the Consumer Protection Agency non productive? And, I could go on.

    the problem with government isn't the government, it is bigness. I worked for a multinational company and they had many of the problems of bigness that government has. Committee management, deadwood in the ranks, office politics, etc. If medicare has to suffer a bit because of bigness, so that everyone is covered, I'm okay with that, though I'm not convinced it will. It might, it might not. The IRS seems to manage okay serving the entire nation.


    My use of "citizen" will include anyone who has the permanent legal right to live here. They work, they pay taxes, though should, therefore, have the same rights as citizens. It takes years to obtain citizenship,( and it takes a while to achieve permanent legal residence) but during that time, do they surrender their rights when they work just as hard, and pay the same taxes, as citizens? Note that I said "permanent legal right" Note that these people are covered by the Constitution, as well. Many who are in the military are such persons. A good section of the navy are Filipinos who joined at Subic Bay. That is my view.
    Clarification concerning my use of not productive follows...

    Government agencies do not produce money to keep them in operation.

    Yes, there are many Government agencies that do provide important services.

    However, those services are dependent on tax payers dollars.

    Government agencies do not operate like businesses.

    When businesses have the problem you call bigness they need to act to correct that problem in order to prevent the business from going into failure mode.

    When Government Agencies have the bigness problem they do not react like a business to solve the problem.

    Government reaction is not finding solutions to fix the problem.

    They simply resort to raising taxes and those agencies remain bloated. With more bloat to follow because they never go out of business.

    What is your view concerning the idea of legal versus illegal status?

    Do you believe there is no such thing as any persons who are residing in the U.S. being identified with an illegal status?

    If, you believe all persons regardless of legal/illegal status to be citizens, then you will need to put all of them in line with you for accessing Government health care.

    How do persons that are not legally residing in the U.S. pay taxes?

    Since people who work in the U.S. need a social security number to work in the U.S. >>>in order to pay taxes to the I.R.S.

    For the sake of argument let's assume Medicare does suffer from bigness, what do you have in mind to correct that problem?

    Can you provide any information concerning the actual cost to the tax payers for your idea of Medicare for all and when it suffers from bigness what the additional cost will be for the tax payers?

    Pipe dreams are wonderful things if they actually pan out but end up being a nightmare when they fail.

    You use simple talking points to express a pipe dream.

    So far, you have not provided any substantial information to prove the pipe dream can be a functional and affordable enterprise.

    Roseann

  6. #236
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,066

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by CharisRose View Post
    [...]

    Government agencies do not produce money to keep them in operation
    Yes, there are many Government agencies that do provide important services.
    However, those services are dependent on tax payers dollars.
    Government agencies do not operate like businesses.

    When businesses have the problem you call bigness they need to act to correct that problem in order to prevent the business from going into failure mode.
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on how serious the problem is and whether there is incentive to correct it.
    When Government Agencies have the bigness problem they do not react like a business to solve the problem.
    And, the alternative is, what? No government?
    Government reaction is not finding solutions to fix the problem.

    They simply resort to raising taxes and those agencies remain bloated. With more bloat to follow because they never go out of business.
    You have a typical right wing view of government. Of course a government, by it's nature, is not subject to the rigors of competition, but that is the price that must be paid in order to have a government. The alternative is anarchy, which would be chaos. Got a better idea?

    What is your view concerning the idea of legal versus illegal status?

    Do you believe there is no such thing as any persons who are residing in the U.S. being identified with an illegal status?
    What are you saying, specifically? Deport 12 million illegals?
    If, you believe all persons regardless of legal/illegal status to be citizens, then you will need to put all of them in line with you for accessing Government health care.
    I did not say that.
    How do persons that are not legally residing in the U.S. pay taxes?
    Not sure, but they do, per this study:
    Economic impact of illegal immigrants in the United States - Wikipedia

    Research reviewed by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office indicates that between 50 percent and 75 percent of unauthorized immigrants pay federal, state, and local taxes. Illegal immigrants are estimated to pay in about $7 billion per year into Social Security.
    For the sake of argument let's assume Medicare does suffer from bigness, what do you have in mind to correct that problem?
    Medicare is more efficient than HMOs, private insurance. No, it's not as efficient as Bernie Sanders said it was, but one thing IS true, it's not less efficient than private insurance. In fact, it's more efficient, but less than Bernie says. Politifact sheds light on this.
    Therefore, You should direct that question to private insurers, many are quite large.


    Can you provide any information concerning the actual cost to the tax payers for your idea of Medicare for all and when it suffers from bigness what the additional cost will be for the tax payers?
    See above.


    Pipe dreams are wonderful things if they actually pan out but end up being a nightmare when they fail.

    You use simple talking points to express a pipe dream.

    So far, you have not provided any substantial information to prove the pipe dream can be a functional and affordable enterprise.

    Roseann
    The alternative, the status of health care as it existed before the ACA, was far worse for many Americans who were unable to afford private insurance, and whose employers did not have health care plans, and the self employed. the ACA eliminated insurers denying claims for pre-existing conditions. You haven't provided any a solution that is better than medicare for all, or the current ACA.

    Trump said he was going to do just that, but he failed on that count, even when he had control over both houses. And remember, they tried to do it on a budget consolidation bill, which required only an up or down vote, and they had a majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house, and they still couldn't do it. So, you think you can? Please enlighten me with your plan.

    I doubt I could give you the information you want, you'll never be satisfied, nor do you, or any republicans, have a better alternative.

    UHC is not a pipe dream in some 50 western developed nations, so how is it a pipe dream when lesser countries have achieved it?

    To assert it is a pipe dream, well, it's only a pipe dream to republicans who resist the concept.
    Last edited by OscarLevant; 02-13-19 at 01:01 AM.
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

    Atomic weapons do not kill people, people kill people.

  7. #237
    Sage


    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    San Diego
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:00 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    9,066

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by CharisRose View Post

    [...]

    Plus, he also has another big thing in his favor... he is not a socialist.

    imho Roseann

    That's not saying much. He espoused democratic ideas before he decided to run for president. I recall back back in the early 2000s where he suggested that a good way to pay down the debt is one off tax on the super rich's wealth, a 25% grab.

    He later retracted that idea, but the fact that he uttered it, means that his core being is a lot closer to being a socialist than you imagine.

    Thing is, he doesn't really care. he just wants to be loved by a lot of people, it's all he is really interested in, and the Trump brand.

    The question remains, why did he run as a Repub and not a Dem, given his history?

    My gut feeling is that, given that he's rich, he surveyed the landscape, noting that the DNC
    have "superdelegates" who would be in the tank for a party chosen dem, which would not be him, he opted to join the RNC and run as a repub, who do not have superdelegates. Besides, repubs are much much much more friendly to rich guys.

    But, to join the RNC, he has to wear a new suit, one that he is not used to wearing.

    This was proven in spades when he was asked would he favor punishment
    for women who obtained an abortion ( after R v W was repealed ).

    He hesitated, thought about it, and said, "yes, I would favor some form of punishment".

    Here's the thing. Abortion and pro life subject is something well thought about by repubs, it's core principle for them, and the answer to that question should have been a no brainer for any bona fide conservative, which is "Of course not". he got into a big kerfuffle for saying that. That he said it, and had to think about the answer, and this proves to me that he's no long time conservative, he gave an answer he thought they would give, he really didn't know the conservative view on the subject. Therefore, he's wearing a new suit purely for the sake of running for president in a party and philosophy he's not all that familiar with.

    in short, he's a phony.
    Last edited by OscarLevant; 02-13-19 at 01:18 AM.
    Guns do not kill people, people kill people.

    Atomic weapons do not kill people, people kill people.

  8. #238
    Professor
    CharisRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,613

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Depends on how serious the problem is and whether there is incentive to correct it.

    And, the alternative is, what? No government?

    You have a typical right wing view of government. Of course a government, by it's nature, is not subject to the rigors of competition, but that is the price that must be paid in order to have a government. The alternative is anarchy, which would be chaos. Got a better idea?

    What are you saying, specifically? Deport 12 million illegals?

    I did not say that.

    Not sure, but they do, per this study:



    Medicare is more efficient than HMOs, private insurance. No, it's not as efficient as Bernie Sanders said it was, but one thing IS true, it's not less efficient than private insurance. In fact, it's more efficient, but less than Bernie says. Politifact sheds light on this.


    Therefore, You should direct that question to private insurers, many are quite large.



    See above.



    The alternative, the status of health care as it existed before the ACA, was far worse for many Americans who were unable to afford private insurance, and whose employers did not have health care plans, and the self employed. the ACA eliminated insurers denying claims for pre-existing conditions. You haven't provided any a solution that is better than medicare for all, or the current ACA.

    Trump said he was going to do just that, but he failed on that count, even when he had control over both houses. And remember, they tried to do it on a budget consolidation bill, which required only an up or down vote, and they had a majority in the Senate, and a big majority in the house, and they still couldn't do it. So, you think you can? Please enlighten me with your plan.

    I doubt I could give you the information you want, you'll never be satisfied, nor do you, or any republicans, have a better alternative.

    UHC is not a pipe dream in some 50 western developed nations, so how is it a pipe dream when lesser countries have achieved it?

    To assert it is a pipe dream, well, it's only a pipe dream to republicans who resist the concept.
    A Limited Servile Government that is Efficient, Versatile, Competent and actually Governs Responsibly as servants of the People while adhering to the U.S. Constitution is not an example of no government or anarchy as you have suggested.

    How would you describe the qualities of a Democratic Socialist Government?

    I didn't create the illegal problem.

    What I expect from ALL of our elected Representatives is for All of them to work together to fix the problem.

    Based on the fact that it is their job to fix that problem.

    Note: A problem they have been working on for years.

    Note: It is a fact>>> that the years old problem still exists today.


    The Cost of Illegal Immigration to US Taxpayers | FAIR

    Report by Matt O'Brien and Spencer Raley | September 27, 2017

    snippet

    A continually growing population of illegal aliens, along with the federal government’s ineffective efforts to secure our borders, present significant national security and public safety threats to the United States. They also have a severely negative impact on the nation’s taxpayers at the local, state, and national levels. Illegal immigration costs Americans billions of dollars each year. Illegal aliens are net consumers of taxpayer-funded services and the limited taxes paid by some segments of the illegal alien population are, in no way, significant enough to offset the growing financial burdens imposed on U.S. taxpayers by massive numbers of uninvited guests. This study examines the fiscal impact of illegal aliens as reflected in both federal and state budgets.

    The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

    Jun 30, 2011, 03:35pm The Myth of Medicare's 'Low Administrative Costs'

    The Apothecary Avik Roy Forbes Staff The Apothecary Contributor Group
    Healthcare, Fiscal, and Tax Commentary from Forbes’ Policy Editor

    snippet

    Many people wrongly believe that Medicare is more efficient than private insurance; that view was often stated by champions of Obamacare during the debate preceding the law's enactment. These advocates argued that Medicare's administrative costs — the money it spends on expenses other than patient care — are just 3% of total costs, compared to 15% to 20% in the case of private, employer-sponsored insurance. But these figures are highly misleading, for several reasons.

    You are correct. I will continue to resist that pipe dream concept.

    Until that abstract idea; general notion can actually provide information that Health Care for ALL will be Affordable, Beneficial for ALL that also includes an appropriate waiting period when you call to get an appointment to see a Doctor.



    Roseann

  9. #239
    Professor
    CharisRose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:34 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,613

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by OscarLevant View Post
    That's not saying much. He espoused democratic ideas before he decided to run for president. I recall back back in the early 2000s where he suggested that a good way to pay down the debt is one off tax on the super rich's wealth, a 25% grab.

    He later retracted that idea, but the fact that he uttered it, means that his core being is a lot closer to being a socialist than you imagine.

    Thing is, he doesn't really care. he just wants to be loved by a lot of people, it's all he is really interested in, and the Trump brand.

    The question remains, why did he run as a Repub and not a Dem, given his history?

    My gut feeling is that, given that he's rich, he surveyed the landscape, noting that the DNC
    have "superdelegates" who would be in the tank for a party chosen dem, which would not be him, he opted to join the RNC and run as a repub, who do not have superdelegates. Besides, repubs are much much much more friendly to rich guys.

    But, to join the RNC, he has to wear a new suit, one that he is not used to wearing.

    This was proven in spades when he was asked would he favor punishment
    for women who obtained an abortion ( after R v W was repealed ).

    He hesitated, thought about it, and said, "yes, I would favor some form of punishment".

    Here's the thing. Abortion and pro life subject is something well thought about by repubs, it's core principle for them, and the answer to that question should have been a no brainer for any bona fide conservative, which is "Of course not". he got into a big kerfuffle for saying that. That he said it, and had to think about the answer, and this proves to me that he's no long time conservative, he gave an answer he thought they would give, he really didn't know the conservative view on the subject. Therefore, he's wearing a new suit purely for the sake of running for president in a party and philosophy he's not all that familiar with.

    in short, he's a phony.
    I get it, you have a problem with Trump. I have a similar problem with Democratic Socialists/Socialists.

    You have your preference, I have mine.

    Roseann

  10. #240
    Educator

    Join Date
    May 2018
    Location
    Lebanon Oregon
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:40 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    1,034

    Re: This Is What Democratic Socialists In The US Will Bring Us:

    Quote Originally Posted by Moderate Right View Post
    Bring on free healthcare for everyone. Bring on free education for everyone. Steal from the rich and give to the poor. Have the government take over and dictate to large employers. It's called a Utopian society and this is what a Utopian society looks like:

    ‘Maduro Is Ruin.’ Venezuela’s Poor Now Despise the Socialist Leader


    Not the Utopia I envision.
    First this little paragraph to clear up an ever present confusion between democratic socialism and social democracy as ideologies. I urge RW'ers to refer to it frequently

    "The key difference between the two here is the degree of acceptance of Marxist theory and the premise that capitalism must necessarily go. While democratic socialism advocates converting a society from capitalism to a communist society through democratic means, social democracy supports maintaing the capitalist framework, and working inside it, using economic and political interventions and government regulations/services to help the working class."What is the difference between a Democratic Socialist and a Social Democrat? - Quora

    Now what I think social democrats can bring to the table that Dems and Pubs do not. New ideas We desperately need ideas from both the libertarians and the social democrats. We are not getting squat listening to the media describe the same stale ideas listed in the two party platforms.
    Last edited by btthegreat; 02-15-19 at 02:42 PM.

Page 24 of 26 FirstFirst ... 142223242526 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •