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

According to your propaganda machine, Center for American Progress, in particular Jennifer Palmieri, the party with a problem with future electoral issues are Democrats ,,, especially in the absence of the illegal alien voters. She was adamant about getting those illegals voting credentials to drown out Americans who have rejected you socialists hands down.

 

I hope America wins and socialism loses in 2020.

 

America needs to win by improving our understanding of socialism. Government is socialism. We must improve our understanding and application of socialism to Pareto Optimalities.

 

True .. very True. I get this all the time as well. The key is either to define one's terms or just not use the term to begin with. Usually I will use the term "Pure Socialism" when referring to the "State owning most resources of means of production - owned by the collective" .. if we are talking "Socialism lite" I use the term wealth redistribution (as in say that this is what kind of Socialism I am referring to).

Here is the thing - as some have noted "Pure Socialism" has never existed. The State owning most resources and means of production has existed - but not the collective part. It was owned by a few elites at the top such as in communism.

It is then pointless to use the term Socialism in the above sense - which is what is often done - as there is no mainstream party that has the above as its goal.

If we are talking wealth redistribution - what I term "Socialist policy" that is something different.

If we are talking reality - we have been engaging in Socialist since the advent of taxation. This is what taxation is - redistribution of wealth.

It is pointless to pretend that this is some black vs white conversation "Pure Socialism vs Pure Capitalism" - when neither exists in reality. It is all various shades of grey.

What we should be talking about is the "Limits to Gov't power". What forms of wealth redistribution are OK, and which are not, and to what limit.

This is the conversation that is not happening on the political stage in any mentally sound way. Running around crying "Socialism, Socialism" is a mindless pursuit that will not help any of us avoid the massive Gov't bureaucratic monster.

Pretending that Pure Capitalism is the cure all is just as mindless. History has proven otherwise.

At the end of the day - Capitalism and Socialism meet as they go toward the extremes. In both cases you have a few elite owning most resources and means of production.

Somehow we have managed to combine some of the worst elements of both extremes into what I call an Oligopoly-Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

The reason we are at this place is because of citizens being on both extremes which results in the lack of discussion of a middle ground.

It has gotten so stupid - that people are willing to pay double for healthcare for less benefits - on the basis "we don't want Socialism". This is just one example. I can go on and on listing examples that are equally mindless and contradictory in nature.

 

our welfare clause is General not limited or common.

we should be solving all of our problems in a market friendly manner simply Because we allege to subscribe to Capitalism.

 

Aside from the mindless tactic of opening a post with ad hom/strawman fallacy. I don't have a propaganda machine - and if I did it certainly would not be the Center for American Progress.

It is not some big secret that Red is facing a demographic time bomb. Platforms issues like abortion and gay marriage (to name a few) are extremely unpopular among the younger generation.

This is not to say that Blue will necessarily win - Blue is a victim of its own stupidity in many respects. This does not change the fact that 2016 was handed to Blue on a silver platter.

Trump did not win because of love for the Republican party or love for Trump. This was an anti Establishment election. Moore toured the country doing town halls and predicted a Trump win at a time when almost no one thought it possible. He said - "it is not that people liked Trump so much - they just wanted to throw a moltov cocktail into the Establishment.

Hillary was a complete Establishment Insider - in an election where Bernie Sanders was drawing massive massive crowds - way more than Hillary.

The anti Establishment movement was also big on the right - and just as big in the middle. While we know Hillary was a complete Establishment wonk .. we did not know that Trump was. Trump managed to figure out that this was an Anti Establishment election .. which is why this was what he ran on. This was Trumps main platform.

Hillary ? - and the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on campaign advisers - the best of the best. Do we seriously think they had not also figured this out - especially given Bernie ?? Of course they did.

I am speculating here but - I think it was Hillary that refused to listen which is part of the second problem.

Hillary was a horrible candidate - not just horrible -she set the bar for horrible. She had no message - no plan - nothing to "vote for". All she did was "bad Trump, bad Trump, bad Trump" like some parrot or broken record. This was when most of the MSM (sans Fox of course) was doing the same thing so she did not need to.

Then you have Hillary's personality - so condescending and arrogant that many Dem women did not like her (still voted for her but holding their noses). She exuded "Establishment Insider".

Despite the above -- Hillary still won the popular vote. If that does not scare the hell out of some Republican - than this Republican is living in some kind of fairy tale land.

Fast forward to today and the anti Establishment movement has gotten even bigger, Hillary is not running and more of the younger generation are of voting age and some of the older crowd have died.

 

republicans trickle down has got us up to 20+ trillion in debt

the fact is, America uses the best of ALL systems, we do not refuse to use something that works cause it's one system or another

what we need to fix is Corporatism shipping all our jobs overseas

 

The concern is any socialism eventually leads to more socialism which eventually leads to pure socialism which is basically communism. Being kind of socialist is like being kind of pregnant.

 

The same can be said of capitalism. Essentially what you are saying is that power corrupts and more power corrupts more - Agreed.

I agree that Socialism is an evil but, it is a necessary evil. The question is then not - "Do we have socialism or not" - the question is how to limit it.

You seem to be stuck on this "black vs white" "Good vs Evil" paradigm - the problem being is this paradigm is not helpful and nor does it reflect reality.

 

You make some good & valid points. To be sure, change here will be challenging. But, honestly, how long can we continue supporting the current system when we're beginning to recognize that most of us have worked for decades with no increase in actual income? That's disheartening, and could be instrumental in some form of violent upheaval if ignored too long. Capitalism has been sold to Americans as the best economic system in the world. Well, we're living proof that some of that hype is fake news. Capitalism isn't all bad, but our version isn't working for all Americans. It's working for a select few of super wealthy failies at the expense of the rest of us. That select few super wealthy families enjoyed income increases over the past 3 decades of hundreds of percents, while the average American worker worked hard & enjoyed no rise in actual wages at all. I'm not advocating abandoning capitalism. I'm advocating fixing it. And some socialist ideas appear to offer viable answers to some of these issues.

 

I'm stuck on nothing but reality and reality is once a socialist policy is enacted it's impossible to retract as a large group of people get used to getting free stuff so you have to be extremely careful and diligent before enacting any socialist policy.
Obamacare is a example of a rushed through bad program that was doomed to fail but won't go away because too many people are very happy with their free ride.

 

I agree that once Gov't spending is enacted it is almost impossible to retract. This does not help us address the problem of Gov't spending (aka - Socialism). This is a black vs white paradigm.

You are talking about socialist policy as if we could get rid of it -and/or as if it is all or nothing. This does not reflect reality. There is a middle ground. It is completely unrealistic to suggest that we could get rid of all socialist policy - or even to suggest that this would be a good thing.

Obamacare is an example of "Lipstick on a Pig". The systemic issues which plague and are responsible for the ridiculously high cost of our healthcare system 3.5 Trillion in 2017 - were not addressed.

Reality is that socializing our healthcare system completely - the way that other first world nations have done - would be far cheaper. The reality is that we are being raped from both ends. Our system is extortion.

What part of "We pay nearly double" for the same care as in other first world nations - yet have no universal healthcare - do people not understand.

Our system is so obscene that even hard core conservative groups are now calling for socialized medicine - the KOCH Bro's for example.

This is from "The American Conservative" site.
The Conservative Case for Universal Healthcare

https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

I am not making this stuff up. As a fiscal conservative - I want to pay less.. don't you ?

 

If your post is accurate, then Republicans are screaming lies about Democrats wanting to follow Europe down the "socialist" path, when all they are really doing is advocating for significant changes to American capitalism. I disagree with you here, but I'll bend, & say I'm for revising American capitalism to make it more responsive to the majority of American workers by allowing them to enjoy more benefits from our nation's growing wealth than they do right now. So, let's compromise here, and drop the whole idea of "socialism," and agree that our version of capitalism in America is defective, and needs significant change to make it more responsive to average American workers & their families.

 

Many reasons we pay more for healthcare than other countries. A bad reason is litigation and obscene settlements for medical mistakes while a good reason is paying for cutting edge technology and drugs developed in the US. Other countries get a free piggyback ride with that. Doesn't mean socialism is the answer though.

 

The "piggyback" argument is bogus propaganda put out by the Drug Oligopolies - it is complete nonsense. Further - many of these technologies are not developed in the US.

Agreed on the obscene settlements - that is one "systemic issue" that needs to be dealt with. Price fixing - not just for drugs- is another. Anti competitive practices among the Healthcare oligopolies is rampant - and within the bureaucracy.

If socialism can cut costs in half - then it is the answer to high costs.

 

If the "Soclaists" win. What should we do about it?

 

Who could be more SOCIALIST than Dirty Donald who is trying to run General Motors from the White House wants to dictate to news media and alter content of comedy shows and late night TV????

 

I think a decision so important as the one you pose will require highly trained specialists working together awhile to resolve. I think any income above several million dollars/year should be diverted from owner's personal profit margins into national social programs that provide basic amenities to all citizens, such as those I've described in previous posts on this forum. As those personal profits rise in value for any given individual or company or corporation, the portions of those profits diverted should increase. Those making incomes in the billions of dollars should have large percentages of that profit diverted. All Americas should be allowed to benefit from the growing & total wealth of our nation. We're all citizens & participants in creating that wealth, not just the wealthy.

 

Show me the numbers

 

Problem is you kill incentive to grow a business past a certain point once you take the owners profits after a predetermined amount. This kills job production.

 

Socialism is the oposite of free choice, it is mandated policy by force.

 

I can see how rhetorically angry the Progressives in this thread are, I think they know this is going to be a HUGE problem for them in the election.

They have simply been overtly bigoted to too many people, from the numbers alone I don't see how Progressives can win.

- Less than 25% of White Males will vote Dem (31% of population)
- Less than 35% of "White" will vote Dem (63% of population)
- Less than 15% of "Christians" will vote Dem (26% of population)
- Less than 40% of "Male" in general will vote Dem (49% of population)

While those groups overlap quite a bit, all three of them have seen a drop the last three elections in a row and are all expected to be below the percentages listed above.

If you look at a lot of the voting demographics, the following have dropped for Democrats the last three elections

- Total - 53/51/48
- White - 41/39/37
- Black - 95/93/88 (because of Obama, but can they get those #'s again?)
- Male - 49/45/41
- Women - 56/55/54
- Independents - 52/45/42
- 18-29 - 66/60/55
- 45-59 - 50/48/45
- Under $30k income - 65/63/53
- 50-$100k income - 49/46/46
- High School or less - 64/63/45
- Some College - 51/49/43
- Northeast - 59/59/55
- Midwest - 54/51/45
- South - 46/45/44
- Millennial -66/55/46

Every one of those came off the high of "Hope and Change" but has been disillusioned since. The big one is the Millennial vote, which I am a part of. Progressives keep trying to trope out the line that "Millennial support us!" but it simply isn't true, especially in White Millennial who only voted 39% Dem in 2018. The idea of "Socialism" is not nearly as popular as the media is trying to spin.

They pushed as hard as they could in 2018 with INSANE amounts of money, and still they could only pull off the 13th best Midterm Election out of the last 28. Yet the media tried to spin it as a "blue wave"..... sure.

Whew, that is a mouthful. But it is all nothing but data, pure simple facts of numbers. You can argue them all you want, but it appears that the message is fading and that more and more Americans simply don't want it.

Can Progressives really create a coalition against this? I honestly don't think so ....

What happens if/when Trump wins? I am not sure I see this one ending without any violence, but we will see.

 

Not necessarily. It could prevent large monopolies forming--such as Facebook & Amazon.com today. But if a larger market remains out there after a company determines it isn't in their best interest to pursue that market, then that creates an opening for a new company to pursue that market & create new jobs & competition in the process.

 

So if Ford for instance were capped at a certain amount of earnings your theory is other companies would develop cars and build factories and enter the car market so then we would have fifty small car companies instead of one Ford. Sounds unrealistic, unworkable and extremely inefficient to me.

 

Oh, I think any one of all the other car companies could walk in & fill the gap. I think it would work just fine & be quite efficient. Are you defending monopolies?