• 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!

Why Socialism Fails

Moderate Right said:
There's a reason for that. Venezuela is socialism and they have elections there so it must be Democratic Socialism.
Click to expand...

You've highlighted the stupidity of the position, thank you.
 
Nickyjo said:
I drive down the socialist interstate in my socialist regulated car to see my doctor who is paid by socialist Medicare to give me medication regulated by the socialist FDA, and on the way I stop at the socialist post office to pick up my socialist social security check. All these nice polished turds maintained in a democracy.
Click to expand...

There are a select few things government can do. Interstate highways, massive dams... OK.

Social Security. No. It’s a Ponzi Scheme where the government has pissed away the money. 17 paid for each individual when it started. now it’s 2 to 1... and there is no SSC Lock Box.

It’s Greed from current generations ladeled onto future generations.
 
Fruityfact said:
You've highlighted the stupidity of the position, thank you.
Click to expand...

Oh no... Chavez was democratically elected.

He was a known socialist. One supported by so many from Hollywood.

Venezuelans are reaping the fruit of that “Democratic Socialist” seed.

Tastes like ****, but that’s the taste of socialism, regardless of the soil the seed is planted in.
 
Last edited:
ttwtt78640 said:
I look at it more like credit risks and interest rates - the riskier the loan then the higher the interest rate charged by the lender for that type of loan becomes. Not necessarily based on any individual's personal risk (credit rating or income level) but on the default rate of the aggregate pool of borrowers - those who do repay on time with interest (help) cover those who do not. Having insurance which covers 80% after a $5K deductible may be a great help to the care provider but if the total bill is $105K then I could no more pay my $25K share than the entire $105K without being bankrupt.
Click to expand...

Life and death is not comparable to credit risks.
 
zimmer said:
There are a select few things government can do. Interstate highways, massive dams... OK.

Social Security. No. It’s a Ponzi Scheme where the government has pissed away the money. 17 paid for each individual when it started. now it’s 2 to 1... and there is no SSC Lock Box.

It’s Greed from current generations ladeled onto future generations.
Click to expand...

Social security is an insurance program. It is not a ponzi scheme. No one is getting rich off it.
 
devildavid said:
Life and death is not comparable to credit risks.
Click to expand...

Yep, thus we have EMTALA and it's not even considered a crime like shoplifting or grazing - life saving medical care "for free" is already a right.
 
zimmer said:
There are a select few things government can do. Interstate highways, massive dams... OK.

Social Security. No. It’s a Ponzi Scheme where the government has pissed away the money. 17 paid for each individual when it started. now it’s 2 to 1... and there is no SSC Lock Box.

It’s Greed from current generations ladeled onto future generations.
Click to expand...

Social Security has lasted for over 80 years. Not bad. If it is broken, fix it: cut benefits, raise the retirement age, raise the cap on taxable income, etc. Won't be easy, given the politics involved, but doable when we have grown up president from either party whose words people will believe. Boomers will die off too, and then lessen the pressure on the system, I assume.

Here is where you can insert yr suggested solution(s):
 
Phys251 said:
What an adorably stupid request! A less bad question is, where do various countries rank in terms of GDP purchasing power parity per capita?

Also I see that you gave zero effort to defend your lie in Post #123. :)
Click to expand...

Spoken like a true socialist who would rather have a socialist US with a GDP the size of Finland than the GDP we enjoy as the greatest economy on Earth. Why do you want to go backwards? We got where we are because of who we are.
 
It can all be boiled down to theft is not a good look.
 
Fruityfact said:
You've highlighted the stupidity of the position, thank you.
Click to expand...

It is the stupidity of the left that is highlighted. They want Venezuela's problems or they want to shrink the US economy down to the size of Finland in order to have socialism.
 
If I was born in 1946, I rather be born in West German than the United States of America. The socialism of West Germany rebuilt the country and gave a great deal to help its people. The socialism of West Germany to reunite with East Germany has built a strong central European nation. Germany, is the most important nation in Europe and is replacing the United Kingdom as the leader in the west and central Europe. The United States of America is withdrawing leadership in Europe, and with Asia as well. It's citizens want to build a wall to keep out of being a country of North America.

China is a socialist country, and will be the economic powerhouse of Asia and the world during the mid twenty-first century.
 
Moderate Right said:
It is the stupidity of the left that is highlighted. They want Venezuela's problems or they want to shrink the US economy down to the size of Finland in order to have socialism.
Click to expand...

Don't worry, once we kick out the liar in chief and get a proper president, senate, and congress in place, you'll have to "suffer" under socialism. There's literally nothing you can do to stop progress bud, so sit back relax and cry all you want on a debate board in about 5 years time.
 
Fruityfact said:
Don't worry, once we kick out the liar in chief and get a proper president, senate, and congress in place, you'll have to "suffer" under socialism. There's literally nothing you can do to stop progress bud, so sit back relax and cry all you want on a debate board in about 5 years time.
Click to expand...

A huge majority of Americans don't want socialism. Hell, Nancy Pelosi, a liberal's liberal, doesn't even want socialism. You're drinking some very fermented kool aid if you think we are going to get Socialists elected to the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
 
devildavid said:
So that means moving toward laissez faire. But you really are just guessing as to why there are laws and regulations. It isn't just coming from the government, it is coming from what actually takes place in the economy and issues that arise and are then brought to the attention of the government through its branches.
Click to expand...

Go study late 19th century laissez faire capitalism and you'll understand why we will never remotely go back there again.
 
Mach said:
Are you really telling me you think tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations is the best use fo that money to assist the middle class? It's so stupid it hurts.
You think it making it's way through government is such fantasy, but you're entirely willing to magically funnel it to already wealthy individuals and corporations and pray for some trickle down?
Where do you think money we give to the middle class goes veritas? Into socialism's black hole of hell, or maybe it gets spent back into the economy at a higher multiplier than wealthy getting a tax cut?

Hyperbolic nonsense that's not even relevant.
Click to expand...

Giving someone money and having them spend it does not create lasting wealth for those doing the spending and that is the objective.
 
Redress said:
Dodging again I see. Why are you trying so hard to avoid responding to what I actually write?
Click to expand...

I certainly did. You said that I don't understand what words mean so I asked you to define "social ownership of the means of production". You have failed to do so.
 
veritas1 said:
I certainly did. You said that I don't understand what words mean so I asked you to define "social ownership of the means of production". You have failed to do so.
Click to expand...

I have never said "social ownership of the means of production". See, you once again fail to respond to what is actually said by me, and instead try and desperately change the subject.
 
veritas1 said:
Go study late 19th century laissez faire capitalism and you'll understand why we will never remotely go back there again.
Click to expand...

You want to move toward it. That is what wanting more capitalism means.
 
Moderate Right said:
Spoken like a true socialist
Click to expand...

:2funny:
I'm not even a socialist! Your lie tells me EVERYTHING I need to know about you. :lamo Have a good night! :2wave:
 
Moderate Right said:
A huge majority of Americans don't want socialism. Hell, Nancy Pelosi, a liberal's liberal, doesn't even want socialism. You're drinking some very fermented kool aid if you think we are going to get Socialists elected to the presidency, the House, and the Senate.
Click to expand...

Medicare?
 
veritas1 said:
Were the idea not appealing to the left, they wouldn't be giving AOC endless time on TV. She's become the face of the Dem party.
Click to expand...

What about Obama and Hillary are they socialists in favor of centrally planned economy without private property?

Conservatives have been throwing the worlds socialist around like an insult against those who weren't socialists that the word has lost its original meaning. Conservatives created AOC and Bernie Sanders by attacking every social program as "socialist."
 
veritas1 said:
Giving someone money and having them spend it does not create lasting wealth for those doing the spending and that is the objective.
Click to expand...

Create lasting wealth - whose goal is that? Democrats are typically talking about providing health care and higher incomes via fixing taxes on the ultra-wealthy/corporations, and regulating health insurance/corporations to curb some of the worst results.

How do you know an increase in incomes for the middle class would not result in statically on average higher education and better jobs, leading to more sustainable wealth? You're just parroting right wing nonsense.
You do realize right wing propaganda on this is pushed by the wealthy/corporations, don't you?

What does $1M do for a multi-millionaire? Goes into investments/stocks.
What about $1M spread out over 1000 people? Goes back into the economy which drives business and lets them afford greater quality of life, education, etc. (a better investment in our society).

It's so obvious.
 
Redress said:
I have never said "social ownership of the means of production". See, you once again fail to respond to what is actually said by me, and instead try and desperately change the subject.
Click to expand...

What the hell am I supposed to respond to? Here's your original post to me:

Oh for ****s sake that is the most ignorant thing I have read in some time. Every country on earth engages in some level of “central planning”. Socialism is not defined as “central planning”. Many countries far more socialist than the US are doing quite well with their central planning and have not failed. Learn your ****ing history and what words mean before trying to lecture anyone.

Notice the bolded part. You contradicted yourself by saying that socialism is not defined as central planning and then saying that countries much more socialist than the US are doing well with their central planning. So, which is it?

I was also given a definition of "democratic socialism" by your buddy Phys251 that says it entails "social ownership of the means of production" I asked him to define that and he cannot. I asked you and you cannot. Most all of what you've said to me are personal attacks and the little that has any relevance is convoluted. When you have something substantive, let me know. Defining the above term would be a good start.
 
devildavid said:
You want to move toward it. That is what wanting more capitalism means.
Click to expand...

No it doesn't but I see there's no sense beating a dead horse. The one thing we do not want to move toward is LESS capitalism.
 
SonOfDaedalus said:
What about Obama and Hillary are they socialists in favor of centrally planned economy without private property?

Conservatives have been throwing the worlds socialist around like an insult against those who weren't socialists that the word has lost its original meaning. Conservatives created AOC and Bernie Sanders by attacking every social program as "socialist."
Click to expand...

I wasn't discussing Obama and Hillary. They aren't the face of the party at present. BTW, if "socialism" has lost its meaning, I can only imagine what tiny shred of meaning "racist" and "racism" have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom