Socialism vs. the American way of life will be on the 2020 ballot

Thank you.

 

Years of calling for taking over businesses doesn't go away because he stops publicly calling for it and he still publicly calls himself a socialist so until he renounces that and comes out against socialism I'll take him at his word that he's a socialist.

 

Socialism increases taxes so you are mistaken.

 

Crazy Bernie has explained what he means by "socialism" and it doesn't involve collectivizing business.

 

By overcharging like corporations do.

 

Bingo.

 

I think, like most Americans, you confuse socialism with communism. But they are NOT even similar. And, not all socialist countries have collectivized production. Sweden, Denmark, Norway & Germany all have private & corporate businesses.

 

It is unseemingly for any one individual to have income in the tens of billions of dollars, while all those around him/her, even in their own company, never experience even a single million. Socialism simply takes the excess at the top of the pile, and redistributes it to the managers, workers & public citizenry thru social programs &/or benefits. That makes a stronger, more successful, happier society than capitalism alone has managed here in America. We need change.

 

Actually, it is. Socialism is the opposite of liberty.

 

Other way around. American "socialists" confuse Capitalism with Socialism. And yes, Socialism is the same as Communism.

Those countries are all Capitalist. None of them practice any kind of state Socialism. They merely rearrange their surplus in 'social' ways. And they only do THAT, because the vast majority of their citizens agreed to it.

 

No, it isn't. It's a freely made choice, so it can't be.

 

So how much in your opinion should someone be allowed to earn before they are taxed at 100%?

 

Capitalism is not imposed. You are free to make your own choices and rise or fall to whatever level you feel comfortable with. Socialism is imposed because you are forced by government to rise or fall to whatever level they feel comfortable with.

 

I am advocating doing what those W European countries are doing--working capitalism & socialism together harmoniously for the benefit of our nation and its people. I don't really care what you call it.

 

I don't envision a 100% tax on anyone, but I do think anyone making billions of income per year should pay a large chunk of that to the national treasury of the country that made such wealth possible. I also think that money should go into social programs like universal healthcare, universal childcare for working parents, universal free education thru junior college, providing basic clean housing & basic food & nutrition needs for those threatened with homelessness &/or unemployment until a solution can be worked out for the recipients, and finally, a living wage (which can vary by locale &/or worker background. I'm not against the wealthy staying wealthy. I'm not advocating robbing them of what they already have. I'm advocating finding ways for more Americans to enjoy the benefits of our prosperous nation rather than face the stresses of unemployment, underemployment, homelessness, life-threatening illness, or other basic concerns of life that society could assist with as a policy. I want to care about society as a whole important entity, rather than limiting ourselves to caring about ourselves & our loved ones only.

 

You're talking about politics. I'm not.

 

You missed the key point of my post. Here it is again, bolded:

Those countries are all Capitalist. None of them practice any kind of state Socialism. They merely rearrange their surplus in 'social' ways. And they only do THAT, because the vast majority of their citizens agreed to it.

You will never have that agreement in a nation which enables so many of its citizens to refuse participation. No one is ever going to support such an incredibly unfair system, but those at the receiving end of the largess.That's like asking three year olds for healthy breakfast ideas for the masses. The answer is always going to be chocolate ice cream, no matter the cost.

But more to the point, you are NOT a unified and cohesive society, as those very mono-cultural Scandinavian nations were when they came up with this stuff. There is little agreement or common ground on ANYTHING in America, much less something this important.

 

You're wrong about me and wrong if you think socialism doesn't involve collectivizing production.

Communism has never existed. It sprung from the fevered imagination of Karl Marx as the successor to socialism.

They never have been socialist countries.

 

And I doubt you are capable of a coherent argument ... hopefully one day you will prove me wrong but in the moment all you seem capable of is logical fallacy.

 

"Socialist" policies have been part of the American way of life for numerous decades. Clearly you do not understand what "Socialism" is - there is no political party that is espousing pure socialism - State control of most resources and means of production - pooled into some kind of collective.

If you do not understand the basic's - you will not be able to articulate an argument against the progressive extremists.

 

Really bad arguments like the above is why the Republican party is in a bit trouble electorally going forward.

 

When you advocate an income limit it's a de facto 100% tax on any money earned above that limit so once again I ask how much would you allow someone to earn before they were taxed at 100%?

 

Socialism is politics.

 

Some socialism advocates say it's not socialism until government takes over businesses while others such as yourself say we are already socialist because of new deal era policies. I'm therefore put in a position of responding to both while both accuse me of falsely defining socialism.

 

Optimizing our economy should be on the ballot.