President Trump Criticizes Socialism in State of the Union

I'm waiting for their excuses as to how they aren't going Socialist. Its going to be star studded.

 

There are exceptions to every rule. But "exceptions" amount to less than 1% of our general population, and can't be used as an illustration of what's available to everyone. I'm happy for the success of your example, but that doesn't help fix the disparity of income for the vast majority of Americans, who live in the world's richest nation, without sharing in that incredible wealth. Singing the praises of capitalism doesn't help either, because it was American capitalism that has given us this extreme disparity of income here in America over the last three decades. I know it's hard for conservatives to accept change, but economic system change is precisely what America needs, and needs now.

 

That would be your unsupported personal opinion so I'll ignore it.

Again, your opinion. And again, ignored.

Check into the Mondragon Cooperative Corporation.

Ok, so back to your opinion since you now specify the USSR. There are far too many details involved that heavily influenced those collapses to allow for your theory to be considered the essential one. And if you have read my replies to similar assertions in many other threads for the last couple of years, you would know that I oppose strongly the strategies employed in the USSR, China, and other countries in which a violent revolution seized state power and consider such strategies to be fundamentally flawed and unworkable.

But your opinion regarding "utopian ideology and systems" being the reason for said failures is demonstrably incorrect.

 

That isn't a strawman. It was an attempt to make a point about your perspective that obviously flew over your head.

The court is granted the right to INTERPRET the Constitution and the law.

yes it is.

Apparently you are not familiar with the legal interpretation of what constitutes the "public interest".

In your laic opinion you mean.

I totally agree that the government and its officials do not always uphold the constitution. OTOH, when they do, there is legal recourse. Which is why SCOTUS has a case docket of a couple hundred cases a year.

 

LOL - That's because you can't tell me I'm wrong, period.

For your information, the Bolsheviks were affiliated with the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, which happened to be run by the COMMUNIST Party of the Soviet Union. Perhaps, you're starting to see a pattern developing here. The good thing about the Socialist-Communist Two Step is that it permits you and the rest of your socialist-communist-Marxist-Leninist-Maoist-collectivist ad infinitum fellow travelers to tap dance between the two and prattle about their theoretical differences instead of focusing on what "progressives" have done and are doing here in the real world.

I can't help but be amused at how progs lean on their "Cold War propaganda" crutch in so many different ways, too. You've leaned on it to avoid discussing the failed programs of socialists and communists beyond the Iron and Bamboo Curtains during the 20th Century and in places like Venezuela today. Others have used it in order to convince themselves that the arguments of their opponents are the irrational product of "Cold War propaganda" instead of the rational support of individual freedom, free enterprise, limited government and all the other things associated Western Liberalism (and by Liberalism I mean it in the Classical sense).

It's true you're not kidding and exaggerating - you're lying. For example, here in America I have the fundamental human, civil and political right of freedom of speech, enshrined in our First Amendment. That right doesn't exist in your democratic socialist utopias in Western Europe (and Canada).

Man-up, XploreR. Democratic Socialists and their ideas are not above fault and criticism, and stop pretending that we haven't already established a massive welfare system that assists the poor and elderly through Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, HUD/Public Housing, WIC and the rest of the alphabet soup of programs that has already cost tens of trillions of dollars and has over $122 trillion in unfunded liabilities looming on the horizon. We already have those things, but what the socialists in this country want is more power and control. That's why "progressives" want to take over our healthcare and energy - once they have power and control over that they'll have power and control over every individual in this country.

No thanks. We don't your "help".

As the President said, America was founded on liberty and Independence, not government coercion, domination, and control. We are born free and we will stay free.

 

What is lacking for those you speak kindly of is education. Which is why I suggest all kids below the 8th grade get lessons in planning, goal setting and see concrete examples of them working.

Capitalism is only the freedom of person A to engage in commerce with B for the common good.

This video addresses morality and capitalism.

I also would like to point out this took place in a university classroom. Notice the young man presses his issue very well. But he does not listen. He has a preformed conclusion and he wants to change the mind of the professor. The professor wants him to learn essential principles to guide him. Vast difference. Study the pained face of the student. Somewhere along the line he got the idea that private industry must be guided by government and not the market.

 

I beg to disagree and I'll go further by saying that the inability to implement the theoretical ideal AND a more practical version was demonstrated throughout the so-called "Communist Bloc" during the 20th Century and is being demonstrated once again in Venezuela today.

It's not just socialism that has this problem. Any utopian ideology or program that seeks to create an impossible world for an impossible humanity is doomed to failure.

 

When I am in Virginia, during good weather, i truly enjoy that state.

As to your point, I am not aware of the case but do know CA law and am considered under the law of CA to be an expert on this topic. I would be called a court expert in our courts.

It we are discussing the same case, it was a case in one of the states in the upper north east.

 

Do you even read anything people write, or do you just **** on your keyboard anytime you see the word “socialism”?

 

That's correct - it was in Connecticut.

The case was Kelo v. City of New London.

 

CT is a very lovely state. Sadly I only spent one night there and other than that was on the highway going to MA.

Now I recall that case. The Woman living in her home was forced off. The home was taken to a different lot. The land taken from her (with a payment in dollars) was turned over to a small commercial venture to develop. But they chose not to develop and the outcome was she was dispossessed of property that had been in her family for years.

Is that the case?

At the time, I argued in her favor on a forum. When the court ruled against her, I crapped my pants since I knew what eminent domain was intended for. I was shocked justices on the highest court were not well informed on law.

I know now i am correct.


First study the state of the lot today. One can't tell she lived there.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/8...d44e67ef94a92c!8m2!3d41.3429144!4d-72.0948394

 

So you think socialism, on it own, just encourages people do nothing, while capitalism encourages people to get out and achieve? You don’t think there’s any other factors in play here?

70% of small businesses fail in their first 10 years. The competition is too strong to support every person with personal initiative. A majority of those people will not succeed, and we all know this. Furthermore, there’s very little room for new growth in industries already controlled by large corporations who will simply gobble up any competition. This is not a system that inherently promotes personal initiative. In fact, you need a lot of courage—and money—to give yourself such confidence.

Neither system inherently promotes personal initiative. Fear of failure discourages many would-be capitalists; governmental over regulation discourages many would-be socialists, which doesn’t real look a whole lot different than corporate takeover.

This is a major reason why most societies use a mixed economy, such as USA. That’s what I support. It makes the most sense as the positives of both system tend to cancel out the negatives of both systems, generally speaking.

 

1. Let's examine what's within a name. Why do you suppose our founding fathers decided to name our new nation the "United States"? I think it was because they were so DISUNITED. But of course the leaders wanted to promote the idea of being "united together", so they called us the "United States" to motivate those less cooperative states to try & live up to the name. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics name follows a similar theme. Lenin & his Bolsheviks knew communism was a tyrannical form of government that would have difficulty gaining public support. They also knew that educated people knew about socialism & considered that milder in tone & nature than communism, so they included the term "Socialist" in the name of their new country to soften the image and gain public support. But communism & socialism have very little in common with each other.
2. It is true that several countries who called themselves "socialist" during the 20th century, along with Venezuela today, became examples of horrible failure both economically & in the realm of civil rights. But truthfully, those that became the horror tales were communist, not socialist in nature. Venezuela called (& calls) itself "socialist," but its leaders patterned their rule after their idol, Castro in Cuba, which is a hard-core communist state. Communism is a tyrannical form of government, and I, nor anyone I know personally supports such a system for anyone anywhere anytime. Democratic Socialism is a VERY DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
3. You're wrong. In most of the W European countries--especially those that govern under Democratic Socialism, human rights, civil rights, individual rights are all enthusiastically protected and enjoyed by the people & the government. True, those rights aren't listed there in public documents as they are here, but that doesn't stop the fact that they are honored, protected & enjoyed by all who live there, to an extent surpassing us here.
4. As an active Democrat & Democratic Socialist philosophically, I don't see in myself any of the negatives you claim motivate all us liberals. I support all the social programs you named, but feel there are places where regulations within them could be altered, improved or abolished. I support a national healthcare system because not just a worker loses his/her healthcare when they lose a job, but their families do too, and that's simply not fair. I've had occasions when I have had no healthcare access, and my current wife went for two years during the last decade when she had no healthcare access, and that's scary. We couldn't afford over $600. per month minimum premiums necessary to get it for her. So my experience helped form my position on the issue. I have a great deal of sympathy & empathy for those struggling with this very situation today. But that's not necessary. We can do better. I don't want new, improved ways for government to control people's lives, but I DO want government to care enough to guarantee every citizen can see a doctor & get medical attention when necessary regardless of their social or financial situation. I'm sorry you and other conservatives see that as something threatening. It's not intended as such.
5. It might be worth remembering that several of those founding fathers who left us the ideals you show such enthusiasm for, didn't practice those ideals in their own lives. Several of them were slave owners who regarded blacks as sub-human, allowed them no human rights, raped their women, and sold their children to other slave owners at will. Your freedoms didn't come from that hallowed piece of paper you describe in such glowing terms. It came from those who followed our founding fathers, who cared enough to try & live the ideals they wrote down for us. That effort continues today. I'm part of it--as are many of those liberals now banging on the doors of our conscious to wake up & live what we supposedly honor in human freedoms & rights.

 

SBA has many excellent small books on this subject. There is a spread of failed businesses. Many do not make it a full year. It depends a lot on the owners, their skills, their training, their expertise in what they are in business to do and prices and location.

The nations finest restaurant will never survive let's place it at Elko NV. Through the traffic count is high, the ambience of the desert will not support a high end fine restaurant. If the owner started a MCDonalds his or her chance would improve.

 

I want to take your non insured periods and examine those.

Did you approach any doctor and ask if you could pay them a monthly payment when you were not ill? Doctors can see a well patient in maybe 5 minutes. A sick patient takes longer. Japan for instance has a health care system and doctors there spend 5 minutes per patient avg.

Besides buying insurance, what else did you try?

Are you and your wife chronically ill? Is this perhaps due to you not having vaccinations or taking good care of your diet?

 

When the topic involves spending, why not begin at the beginning?

What are your resources? Say you get an offer for health coverage for $500 per month. Can you spend that same cash and get more? Can you spend less but get the same things?

Solutions
1. Contract with a local doctor
2. Purchase cheap insurance that covers you to keep you from being destitute.
3. Offer the doctors prepaid co pays.

Doctors are forced by medicare to work very cheap. Most do not care that the doctor get crapped on by medicare and if they know, they laugh.

Insurance firms will gladly bargain down doctors fees.

What stops you from doing the same thing?

 

I apologize, honesty, because I don’t see the connection. That’s not a shot at you; rather, I simply admit “I don’t get.” I mean, I understand the topic, but within this context, I don’t see the point.

I genuinely feel bad because I can see you put a lot of thought into your response, but I’m too thick to grasp the intent. Seriously, I’m so lost, I can’t even tell if you agree or disagree with my post.

 

For me, it would take you demonstrating how Jeff Bezos' amassed fortune is somehow preventing me from becoming wealthy myself.

You are saying, if I understand you correctly, is that because he already got all the wealth, there isn't any left for me to get.

There is not one pie, from which everyone gets a slice. Everyone has their own pie that they are free to bake as large as their baking skills will permit.

 

Your brand of socialism is not practiced. Most representing how it is in Europe have only a faint clue. And they are prone to believe that which they read and consider most favorable with no study as to other factors.

As it now stands here in the USA, the on budget costs do not provide for socialism.

 

You are right in saying there are more pies thru which to make money, but what I'm saying is there's a finite amount of money within the country itself, and 2% of our people own & have control over where it goes & how it's used. You or your friends & family may have a variety of ways to make money, but what you make is limited by the total available within your business zone, and if that money isn't allowed to be available to you because of the 2% who control it, then how can you improve your condition?

 

You appear triggered.

Its well established that socialism is a massive failure.

Meanwhile, dems have torpedoed themselves in 2020 over this.

Its been a very entertaining month.

 

I'm sorry I can't respond to your post in detail right now but I'll get back with you later. News just broke that the Democratic Lt. Governor of our commonwealth got hit with a second rape allegation.

 

Neither I or anyone I know, or any politician currently in the news as a Democratic Socialist, want to dissolve our Constitutional government & replace it with a socialist state. We want to advance a few important socialist programs to help middle America because they've been left out of the benefits from rising wealth in America for decades. We are not monsters. We are concerned Americans who care both for the rights of our fellow Americans & our Constitution. But we're tired of having a small, privileged few usurp the wealth of the nation while leaving the vast majority of us in constant financial lack. That needs to end. There are ways of doing that that are not destructive, but would help middle America considerably. Instead of simply rejecting every idea coming from these new Democratic Socialist politicians outright, take the time to look at their proposals, think about whether it could do some good for the country, and see if you can mentally think of ways conservatives & liberals could work together in mutual respect & compromise (both sides), to actually find agreement. That's the way America is supposed to work. Help make it happen.

 

Im taking a risk on a new business. 3 people right now. Im expecting it to fail but so far so good.

 

Literally any one can spend their Saturdays on the offramp holding a cardboard sign, and invest the proceeds into a million dollar retirement fund, if they start in their teens, and do it every week. Anyone.

There is no limit to the amount of money a resourceful and determined individual can make, and the money bezos has squirrelled away has no bearing on it.