Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

Please don't include me in "you all." I'm further away from daily political nuts and bolts than ever. I haven't had any time to really delve into Sanders because I highly doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm also quite tired of the bad blood between you and I and have grown weary of hating on each other.

I understand that observation about attacking the wealthy, but the last economic collapse, Wall Street got bailed out and Main Street went bankrupt or lost massive amounts of assets and retirement savings. I think it's a little more complicated than some massive shift towards socialism.

There is a strange hypocritsy in today's Demcoratic party in which they constantly attack the wealthy even though they take in billions in contributions from Wall Street. That's the strangest thing about it. The Clinton's are simply the classic example of it.

At the same time, they constantly ridicule the southern States for being poverty ridden moochers. I thought it was the Democrats who cared about the poor, and the Republicans were the meanies who cared only about the rich. Very strange.

 

And since you guys have gridlock on the brain, I propose the following solution....Lets overturn election results to prevent a split government. Just give one party enough votes to pass anything they want. How's that?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

Do we really want to go there again in overturning election results. Didn't that already happen in 2000?

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'.

To the left bi-partisan cooperation means doing what the left wants.

Exactly right. And when the TWO parties can't agree, we have gridlock. Strangely though, when the condition exists only ONE party is ever to blame. You'll never guess which one....

But the folks promoting the grid lock do not represent the majority of the United States. They don't even represent the majority of the Republican Party. To you "compromise" is the majority of Americans giving in to a very vocal minority.

Read this article that has studied how people self-identify and how that identity often contradicts their world view.

http://www.alternet.org/story/149561/americans_are_far_less_conservative_than_the_right_wing_claims

Here's an excerpt:

But new research suggests that pundits ought to be cautious of overinterpreting the conservative label: It doesn’t always mean what they think it means: Only a quarter of self-identified “conservatives” may actually be true conservatives on the issues — less than the 30 percent of whom are not conservative at all, but simply like the label.

The reason why so few “conservatives” turn out to be solid right-wingers is that the word “conservative” has different meanings for different people, according to political scientists Christopher Ellis of Bucknell and James A. Stimson of the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, who describe their findings in a new working paper, “Pathways to Ideology in American Politics: The Operational-Symbolic ‘Paradox’ Revisited”

According to their research, some people genuinely know what it means to be a conservative in the current political debate and indeed express matching preferences across all issues. But these “constrained conservatives” (as Ellis and Stimson call them) account for only 26 percent of all self-identified conservatives.

More common are the “moral conservatives” (34 percent), who think of themselves as conservative in terms of their own personal values, be they social or religious. And they are indeed right-leaning on social, cultural and religious issues. But they also like government spending on a variety of programs and generally approve of government interventions in the marketplace, hardly making them true conservatives.

And still others, “conflicted conservatives” (30 percent), are not conservative at all on the issues. But they like identifying themselves as conservatives. To them, it somehow sounds better. “They like the word,” explained Ellis. Or at least, they like it better then their other choices in the traditional self-identification questionnaire: moderate and liberal.

Finally, a smaller group of self-identified “conservatives” (10 percent) could be classified as libertarian — conservative on economic issues, liberal on social issues.

Self-identified liberals, on the other hand, are consistently liberal on all the issues, according to Ellis and Stimson. Two-thirds of liberals fit into the category of “constrained liberals,” who pick the label because it actually describes their worldview.

A good part of the reason why moral conservatives keep calling themselves conservative (despite dubiously conservative issue positions) is that these are voters who don’t follow politics closely enough to fully understand what it means to be a political conservative. Conflicted conservatives, meanwhile, identify as conservatives because they hear liberals defend programs and Republicans defend principles and agree with both without confronting the contradictions.

“People don’t hear conflicting arguments, but rather two sets of arguments,” explained Ellis. “Conservatives talk about a commitment to conservative values, and liberals talk about what we can do for you on education or the environment. Elite conservatives never say cut education spending, and elite liberals never say we’re proud to be liberals. The two groups of people talk past each other.”

This is a longstanding phenomenon. In another paper, Ellis and Stimson have shown going back to at least 1937 — the heart of the New Deal — that the American public, on average, has been operationally liberal and symbolically conservative. That is, that when asked about specific “liberal” government programs — be they spending on education, environmental protections, regulation of business — the majority of voters consistently say they approve.

But when asked to self-identify as liberals, moderates or conservatives, many of the same voters say they are “conservative.” The gap widened in the 1960s, when Republicans started making a concerted effort to turn “liberal” into a four-letter word. Since then, there has been an enduring 20-25 percent gap between the percentage of Americans who identify as liberals and who actually support liberal policies.

For both true liberals and true conservatives, however, the contradictions between self-identification and actual policy preferences can be maddening.

“Liberals would say, these people like all these things but call themselves conservative, so it just must be an artifact or a label,” said Ellis. “Conservatives would say these people call themselves conservative, they share our values and principles, but they don’t understand these policies are not reflective of our values.”

As for the supposed conservative shift this election, Ellis believes that voters were thinking more about symbols and values than about specifics: “The tenor of the discussion was about smaller government, lower taxes and traditional social values,” said Ellis. No wonder, then, that a few more people identified themselves as conservatives. (Other research has suggested that ideology can shift depending on the situation and that conservatism tends to rise in response to anxiety and uncertainty.)

But that doesn’t mean that the recent uptick in conservative self-identification provides a ringing endorsement of conservative policies for a simple reason: Most so-called conservatives just aren’t that conservative.

“I hope what this does is provide a grain of salt in reading public opinion,” said Ellis. “We’re more conservative now than we were two years ago, but the raw numbers are misleading. They give a picture that’s just not there when you dig deeper.”

Lee Drutman, Ph.D., is a senior fellow at the Progressive Policy Institute and the managing editor of ProgressiveFix.org. He has worked as a staff writer for the Philadelphia Inquirer and the Providence Journal. His work has also appeared in the Los Angeles Times, New York Newsday, Slate, Politico, and the American Prospect Online.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

 

I think it was pretty bad alloak. But you used Ireland and they have certainly been on an economic roller coaster experience boom and bust like the United States economy.

In March of this year the WSJ reported that Ireland's economy was the fastest growing economy in the EU for the year 2014. The government was considered Socialist in 2014.

I don't understand your point.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

I'm loathe to enter these discussions much these days, but you couldn't be further from the truth on this one. We were perilously close to an all out financial system collapse that would have ultimately been global. I can paint the entire picture for you if you want, but simply put, if the money center banks go out of business, that is economic collapse. (Think payrolls...)

 

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

I'm loathe to enter these discussions much these days, but you couldn't be further from the truth on this one. We were perilously close to an all out financial system collapse that would have ultimately been global. I can paint the entire picture for you if you want, but simply put, if the money center banks go out of business, that is economic collapse. (Think payrolls...)

Apparently the money center banks didn't go out of business.

 

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

I'm loathe to enter these discussions much these days, but you couldn't be further from the truth on this one. We were perilously close to an all out financial system collapse that would have ultimately been global. I can paint the entire picture for you if you want, but simply put, if the money center banks go out of business, that is economic collapse. (Think payrolls...)

Apparently the money center banks didn't go out of business.

Thus my loathness...

You are correct. Had they, there would have been a collapse. Thus the near ...

 

I am not in the financial industry but as a superpower, if the US went down, then chaos would have ensued. You could see it in the eyes of the people arguing for the bailout packages. I believe we were very close to a financial lockdown.

Unfortunately there were no repercussions for the people that got us into this mess after they received the bailout funds and proceeded to issue lavish bonuses with taxpayer monies.

People don't associate socialism with communism eventhough they both emerge from work of Karl Marx. They associate it with the failed labor parties of Europe. For example Greece.

Winston Churchill was referring to the Labor party of England when he said that capitalism is unequal sharing of blessing, socialism is the equal sharing of misery. He also said that trying to tax your way to prosperity is like a man trying to get out of a well by lifting himself up in a bucket. A wise man he was and a great liberal.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

I find it interesting that Ireland's economy suffered near collapse just months after those on the right (including those on this board) were praising them for their super low corporate taxes and how great it was working out for them. But now we don't hear about how Ireland's super low corporate taxes might have had a part in their near economic collapse - now it is because they are socialists. Yeah, ok.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

I find it interesting that Ireland's economy suffered near collapse just months after those on the right (including those on this board) were praising them for their super low corporate taxes and how great it was working out for them. But now we don't hear about how Ireland's super low corporate taxes might have had a part in their near economic collapse - now it is because they are socialists. Yeah, ok.

How would a low corporate tax rate lead to economic collapse?

People don't associate socialism with communism eventhough they both emerge from work of Karl Marx. They associate it with the failed labor parties of Europe. For example Greece.

Winston Churchill was referring to the Labor party of England when he said that capitalism is unequal sharing of blessing, socialism is the equal sharing of misery. He also said that trying to tax your way to prosperity is like a man trying to get out of a well by lifting himself up in a bucket. A wise man he was and a great liberal.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

I find it interesting that Ireland's economy suffered near collapse just months after those on the right (including those on this board) were praising them for their super low corporate taxes and how great it was working out for them. But now we don't hear about how Ireland's super low corporate taxes might have had a part in their near economic collapse - now it is because they are socialists. Yeah, ok.

A 2005 study by The Economist found Ireland to have the best quality of life in the world. Ireland suffered from the same global economic crisis as the US and pretty much every other developed nation in 2008, but from 1995-2007, Ireland had the highest growth rates in Europe. In 2014, GDP growth in Ireland was double the US, 4.8% vs 2.4%, and is projected to be 5.4% in 2015. Not sure why anyone is Ireland bashing, it's not even socialist.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

I find it interesting that Ireland's economy suffered near collapse just months after those on the right (including those on this board) were praising them for their super low corporate taxes and how great it was working out for them. But now we don't hear about how Ireland's super low corporate taxes might have had a part in their near economic collapse - now it is because they are socialists. Yeah, ok.

How would a low corporate tax rate lead to economic collapse?

By not providing enough revenue for the government to pay their bills.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

Wow. Just, wow. Every time I think I've seen it all from you, you go an up your game like this. Apparently you are the gullible type.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

Wow. Just, wow. Every time I think I've seen it all from you, you go an up your game like this. Apparently you are the gullible type.

Refute the point then. The thread is not about me.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

People don't associate socialism with communism eventhough they both emerge from work of Karl Marx. They associate it with the failed labor parties of Europe. For example Greece.

Winston Churchill was referring to the Labor party of England when he said that capitalism is unequal sharing of blessing, socialism is the equal sharing of misery. He also said that trying to tax your way to prosperity is like a man trying to get out of a well by lifting himself up in a bucket. A wise man he was and a great liberal.

Do you think Bernie could implement anything close to "true" Socialism? Greece is a good example of a massive economic screw up, but what about the countries that have working Socialistic models? Denmark? Finland? Canada? Norway? Ireland? Sweden? Belgium?

I'm not sure how well those models are actually working. In any event they would never work here.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

I find it interesting that Ireland's economy suffered near collapse just months after those on the right (including those on this board) were praising them for their super low corporate taxes and how great it was working out for them. But now we don't hear about how Ireland's super low corporate taxes might have had a part in their near economic collapse - now it is because they are socialists. Yeah, ok.

A 2005 study by The Economist found Ireland to have the best quality of life in the world. Ireland suffered from the same global economic crisis as the US and pretty much every other developed nation in 2008, but from 1995-2007, Ireland had the highest growth rates in Europe. In 2014, GDP growth in Ireland was double the US, 4.8% vs 2.4%, and is projected to be 5.4% in 2015. Not sure why anyone is Ireland bashing, it's not even socialist.

Correct. I can't find any evidence to the contrary.

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

No one here is advocating for that kind of system and no one has expressed a desire to live under that kind of system, that's just you putting words in other people's mouths. No one is asking you to choose between a dictator and gridlock. But you seem to be happy with gridlock. Seems as though you think anything short of gridlock is the same as granting one man the ability to make changes all by himself, and THAT is twisted.

Again, reading the posts will help. We had two different posters express regret that one man (Sanders) can't really change things. I didn't put those words in their mouth. Sorry, I just don't believe one man should have that much power. Luckily, the Founders agreed.

And since you guys have gridlock on the brain, I propose the following solution....Lets overturn election results to prevent a split government. Just give one party enough votes to pass anything they want. How's that?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

Alloak you are the one who keeps bringing up gridlock as proof that our political system is working not the liberals posting here. You seem to be the on obsessed with gridlock my friend

My contention is gridlock is not proof that our system is working but exactly the opposite. Both parties are entrenched in their ideology and refuse to work with each other on compromises for the good of the people who elected them.

My only point regarding Bernie Sanders is I think he has some genuinely progressive ideas that would benefit Joe the Plummer but I doubt he would be able to get the GOP to cooperate as many of the ideas are 180 degrees opposed to their agenda.

But in fairness that same can be said of the Democrats working with the Republicans as it is a two way street.

How do we fix this? Not sure it is fixable but off the top of my head how about these

1. Term limits for Congress so that the same entrenched politicians cannot stay in office forever. get fresh blood in and avoid any one person in Congress accumulating too much power.
2. Campaign funding reform. As long as we allow rich individuals to contribute large sums of money to politicians there is going too be issues with the politician doing their bidding.
3. Cap how much a politicians can spend on campaigning to level the playing field
4. Stronger regulations regarding lobbyists. Probably not feasible but I would love to see lobbyists outlawed all together.
5. Make it easier for more political parties to run for office. if you tie this with campaign fund limits and campaign funding reform maybe we will actually get more choices to vote for and people like Ben Carson and Bernie Sanders might actually have a chance to run for office.

Now I am not saying what I propose above is even feasible but it is evident to me our current system is FUBAR'd.

There is no true Socialist country. There are many countries with Social Welfare programs like the programs that Bernie champions that are still Capitalist. That's why it is so ridiculous that the Right Wing is screaming "Socialist!" at Bernie in the same manner that McCarthy screamed "Communist!" at Aaron Copeland, Burgess Meredith, and scores of other Americans.

My statement stands. Would you want Ted Cruz to have that kind of power? I bet gridlock wouldn't seem so bad all of the sudden...

I have no idea what "kind of power" are you talking about. Gridlock is bad no matter who is in office, legislative branch or executive branch. But you say gridlock is good. That's twisted.

Just read the posts (the ones on 7/20/15 at 21:55 in particular), and I'll gladly stand by that statement. I'm talking about the kind of power that grants one man the ability to make changes all by himself. The desire to live under that kind of system is worse than twisted.

No one here is advocating for that kind of system and no one has expressed a desire to live under that kind of system, that's just you putting words in other people's mouths. No one is asking you to choose between a dictator and gridlock. But you seem to be happy with gridlock. Seems as though you think anything short of gridlock is the same as granting one man the ability to make changes all by himself, and THAT is twisted.

Again, reading the posts will help. We had two different posters express regret that one man (Sanders) can't really change things. I didn't put those words in their mouth. Sorry, I just don't believe one man should have that much power. Luckily, the Founders agreed.

And since you guys have gridlock on the brain, I propose the following solution....Lets overturn election results to prevent a split government. Just give one party enough votes to pass anything they want. How's that?

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by alloak41]

You are twisting what was said Alloak. Presidents have platforms on things they would like to accomplish. When they get into office they try and work with Congress to make this happen.

The way our current system works neither party is willing to compromise and work together to implement changes for the good of the people. Under Obama the GOP has basically mandated that their members vote against anything this President wants to accomplish. You can't deny this as all you have to do is look at the voting records of Congress.

At no point did I say I wanted a dictatorship but if you want to twist my words and play your games have fun.

Bernie will accomplish all this wonderful reform and more l by growing the size of government to astronomical levels. More bloated, lumbering and inept than the present state, for which no single party shares in all the blame. This basic point escapes most progressives. Bernie wants to be the architect to a great society governed by bureaucrats.

No thank you.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by OriginalGoober]

Bernie will accomplish all this wonderful reform and more l by growing the size of government to astronomical levels. More bloated, lumbering and inept than the present state, for which no single party shares in all the blame. This basic point escapes most progressives. Bernie wants to be the architect to a great society governed by bureaucrats.

No thank you.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by OriginalGoober]

And of course you can prove all of this right?

Bernie will accomplish all this wonderful reform and more l by growing the size of government to astronomical levels. More bloated, lumbering and inept than the present state, for which no single party shares in all the blame. This basic point escapes most progressives. Bernie wants to be the architect to a great society governed by bureaucrats.

No thank you.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by OriginalGoober]

And of course you can prove all of this right?

That is what I was going to say. OG is obviously unaware that the government grew more under Reagan and Bush than it ever did under any Democratic president.

Bernie will accomplish all this wonderful reform and more l by growing the size of government to astronomical levels. More bloated, lumbering and inept than the present state, for which no single party shares in all the blame. This basic point escapes most progressives. Bernie wants to be the architect to a great society governed by bureaucrats.

No thank you.

[Edited on 7/21/2015 by OriginalGoober]

And of course you can prove all of this right?

That is what I was going to say. OG is obviously unaware that the government grew more under Reagan and Bush than it ever did under any Democratic president.

For the life of me I don't understand why Republicans consider themselves the fiscally conservative party.

Ireland's economy suffered a near collapse.

As did the United States'

You honestly believe that?

A handful of financial companies, albeit large ones, had been mismanaged and went belly up. They had to be absorbed by other companies or bailed out, but an economic collapse? You never struck me as the gullible type.

Wow. Just, wow. Every time I think I've seen it all from you, you go an up your game like this. Apparently you are the gullible type.

Refute the point then. The thread is not about me.

Your characterization of what happened to the US economy starting in 2008 is grossly misinformed, or you are intentionally misstating it, or you are the gullible type. Hundreds of thousands of companies were put out of business, and the great majority were not absorbed or bailed out. It was very close to being much, much worse. A near collapse is accurate.

Bernie will accomplish all this wonderful reform and more l by growing the size of government to astronomical levels. More bloated, lumbering and inept than the present state, for which no single party shares in all the blame. This basic point escapes most progressives. Bernie wants to be the architect to a great society governed by bureaucrats.

Hey Original Goober... Why do you support austerity? I don't know about you, but I know that I pay a lot of taxes. I pay more in taxes than I pay for entertainment, my cars, and two mortgages combined.

I'd like to get something back for that money. Why do you think programs like free college education and single payer health care are bad? The government is going to spend money. We are wasting billions on jet fighters that don't work and tanks that we don't need, on weapons systems that the Pentagon doesn't want. Wouldn't you rather get something for your money?

And aren't a healthy and educated populace security concerns?

Look around... do you think we could compile a standing army that are physically able to battle the Chinese? Our kids, compared to the children of other advanced nations, are fat and stupid. Has there ever been a fat and stupid army that won a war?

I'd like to get something back for that money.

Do you not think you are getting something for that money now?

Absolutely gondicar. But I believe in a great society. The cost of Empire is destroying the United States. Unless we change our priorities this Empire, like all Empires of the past, will fall.

What in my post made you think I believed I was getting nothing from the government?

[Edited on 7/22/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

Absolutely gondicar. But I believe in a great society. The cost of Empire is destroying the United States. Unless we change our priorities this Empire, like all Empires of the past, will fall.

What in my post made you think I believed I was getting nothing from the government?

[Edited on 7/22/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

You talked about how much taxes you pay and followed that with "I'd like to get something back for that money" which sounds like you think you aren't getting something for that money.

Doug, will you be refusing your Medicare benefits when the time comes as a matter of principle? [/quote

First of all what gives you the idea that I oppose social security Medicare or any other government benefits we have here in the U.S. just because I opose true socialism.

I don't have that idea. Just saying that we're all a little bit socialist. There must be some kind of collectivist mentality or it would be impossible to maintain an orderly society.

I'm not the foremost expert on Bernie Sanders but if you are thinking Soviet-era socialism re:workers I'm not sure that's what Sanders is. Could be, though. I dunno.

Whenever anyone criticizes socialism it is popular to respond with examples of the classic liberal welfare policies and claiming well if you support that you are a littl ebit socialist. I would not call somneone who believes in a social safety net or other similar things as socialist. I never have and never will. That is not the definition of socialism.

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system."

Socialists exist along a spectrum and I do think the modern Democratic party is turning inthe direction of socialism and away from real liberalism. The constant attack of the profit motive and attacks on business not because they are corrupt or break laws but because they make too much money or take too much of the "pie" or because the wealhy have too much and should share it with the less wealthy? That's socialism. That's Bernie Sanders. Sorry if you all don't like to hear it but it's true.

Please don't include me in "you all." I'm further away from daily political nuts and bolts than ever. I haven't had any time to really delve into Sanders because I highly doubt he'll be the nominee. I'm also quite tired of the bad blood between you and I and have grown weary of hating on each other.

I understand that observation about attacking the wealthy, but the last economic collapse, Wall Street got bailed out and Main Street went bankrupt or lost massive amounts of assets and retirement savings. I think it's a little more complicated than some massive shift towards socialism.

There is a strange hypocritsy in today's Demcoratic party in which they constantly attack the wealthy even though they take in billions in contributions from Wall Street. That's the strangest thing about it. The Clinton's are simply the classic example of it.

I wouldn't dare disagree with you there. Thing is, saying and doing are two totally different things. Historically, left and right have red meat in their buckets to throw to the faithful. The GOP has made being pro-life a part of their platform to get the conservative Christian vote every election cycle since Roe v Wade and they've never done anything about that issue.

Last time I checked, Wall Street and the wealthy are doing just fine.

Businesses are NOT doing just fine. Economic growth has been anemic. Businesses live to grow. Growth is the lifeblood of our entire economic model and is the reason for our extrarodinary high standard of living. Businesses are not putting their profits back into the business as they traditionally do during times of growth. There is no reason to separate the growth and success of business from the the success of American society itself. The idea that it is a zero sum game where either the rich prosper or the poor is the very essence of socialism, not whether government provides a social safety net for the misfortunate.

Regarding your other point "red meat". Elections have always turned on "red meat" going back 200 years. Check out the rherotic of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Harry Truman as well as the Republicans who opposed them such as ALf Landon and Wendell Wilkie. The difference is that we are now in a permanent campaign. There seems to me that there is no point in time in which the people in the government whether Congress or the White House sit down and say "well the election's over. Let's get down to it." I think the last president who at least attempted to operate in that atmosphere was Bush I. Reagan clearly did and he accomplished a lot, all of it on a bi-partisan basis since at no point did his party have total control of Congress. Carter tried to and he was opposed fromt he left and the right but that opposition seemed to have been based on genuine beliefs.

The permanent campaign is what has caused this. If we want to move forwward we need to break that mind set and both parties are guilty of it. Equally.

 

quote:
Absolutely gondicar. But I believe in a great society. The cost of Empire is destroying the United States. Unless we change our priorities this Empire, like all Empires of the past, will fall.

What in my post made you think I believed I was getting nothing from the government?

[Edited on 7/22/2015 by BillyBlastoff]

You talked about how much taxes you pay and followed that with "I'd like to get something back for that money" which sounds like you think you aren't getting something for that money.

I don't mind paying those taxes. There is still plenty left over to enjoy a really fruitful life. I get a lot for my money. I'm in a National Park just about every single day. I get to Washington DC two dozen or more times a year and take advantage of the monuments, the parks, and the museums.

My concern is about what the government is not building. I'm concerned about the long term implications of the drought in California. I really wish we were building desalination plants on the coast of southern California. I know they are pricey but folks don't miss water until the well runs dry. I think the cost of the drought to the country can be potentially far more than the cost of the plants.

I also want to see our infrastructure improved. Our tax dollars have paid to rebuild Baghdad providing them with new roads, fast internet, and a state of the art power and sewage plant. The human waste actually generates electricity. I'd like to see some of those in the United States.

We spent 7.8 million building an Industrial Park in Kandahar. I'd like to see similar projects in the United States.

I think we are ignoring huge problems at home in order to expand our empire. I think that is a failed governmental strategy. I don't see us getting much back for our money.