The Gov won't save our nation? The Gov is going to bail out FLorida

What's fascist is fascist. We already went through this.
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/what-is-fascism.599179/

What's fascist is fascist.

And, regarrless of anything else, DeSantis most definitely IS
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/desantis-authoritarian-dont-say-gay-ban.598611/
http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/desantis-vs-free-speech.598616/

 

We call these programs Socialists because Republicans call Democrats and Liberals socialist for advocating them.

Republicans are the source of this definition. We just gave up and said, okay, they are socialist. Fine, we'll go along with it.

Now when we reveal that the programs are good for America, ALL OF THE SUDDEN, Republicans say they are no longer socialist.

You see, the sorry ass truth is that you can't win with Republicans. If it's bad, it's socialist, if it's good, it's not.

Give me a ****ing break.

 

I have no reason to believe Fema won't deliver.

 

reread my comment. Republicans have been calling democrats socialist.


Why?

Because of our government programs.

Republicans are the ones defining socialism. We just went along with it.

so, go fly a kite or do something useful other than deny reality.

 

Be careful of weasel words. "everything' is a weasel word.

Be specific, because I can't debate vague.

 

Do you ever feel like a vulture rushing in to politicize a tragedy that affected people of all different political stripes and walks of life for cheap political points?

At least you don't pretend to have any shame.

 

socialism is a collective thing. People contribute to a common fund which is used for the greater good of the people in a non transactional fashion, where it's used to benefit the greater good collectively, as a whole. It has concepts of egalitarianism, equal access to education, health, and opportunities. There are degrees of socialism and the kind that democrats advocate is not the totalitarian kind, but the mixed economy kind. As a democrat, I do not advocate a pure socialist society, I advocate letting government do what it is good at doing, and let private enterprise do what it is good at doing, and there are common areas where both can provide the same service where they compete with each other. Education is one example, as is health care. Police and Fire are not, those are better served by the government, same goes for military.

A simple dictionary one line definition doesn't explain the full spectrum, nuance, of what socialism is.

There are two wiki entries, one on socialism, the other on democratic socialism, and both, if printed as PDF comprise 150 pages.

so, it's a broad concept. I've given a more in depth OP on this a while back:

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

 

You go to every republican on this forum and tell them to stop calling democrats and liberals socialist.

There is hardly a day that goes by where I get the 'liberals are socialist, liberals are communist'.

Which is odd, because I do not know any liberals or democrats that advocate totalitarianism, because that is the association republicans are disingenuously trying to paint liberals as, you know, lenin, stalin, Venezuela, cuba, etc

I'm using THEIR definition. They call dems and libs socialist because we advocate social programs.

If you can manage that, I will stop using that definition. Until then, socialist programs are government programs because that's what republicans call it. I just finally gave up and said to myself, okay, they are socialist programs.

ANd, then we point out the good they are doing, what, now they aren't socialist programs?

Make up your ****ing mind.

 

He's a fascist for not wanting 4-7 year olds to be taught buttsecks in school? ah, what a horrible guy!

 

Maher is a liberal, make no mistake about it. He criticizes the hard left, the wokesters, but he is even more critical of the right.

 

Which doesn't change the fact that its the govt in charge of allocating funds.

 

I'm not sure how helping a state in distress is socialism? Do the folks of Florida not pay federal taxes to help pay for federal aid for any state?

 

SS wouldn't fair better if privatized, because that would require voluntary participation. The ENTIRE reason for SS is that EVERYONE is REQUIRED to participate. Why? So that the millions who would INEVITABLY wind up with nothing when they are older will at least have something. If privatized, those millions would wind up with nothing.

Now, you can blame the fact that they would have nothing on them, for they weren't wise.

But, that's not what social policy is about. It's not about how we want people to be, it's about how they are.

Republicans base policies on how they wish people would act. They wish people would wisely invest their money so that they would have something when they are older. If they don't, republicans just say it's their fault and they don't give a damn. Democrats give a damn. Democrats base policies on how they actually act. We acknowledge that a percentage of the population will not be wise, will not invest, and we make sure that those millions will at least have something. WE believe a society is more civilized, and better, when it makes sure at least everyone has something, even if they can't manage it on their own. WE believe that is a wiser, more civil, better society and a society that is better in that way is better for everyone, whether they know it or not.

The false accusation Republicans make is they think that equals 'tyranny'.

No, tyranny is the absence of democracy. If the majority vote for SS, or Medicare, then it's not tyranny, even if a percentage of the population don't like it. All societies have policies that not everyone likes. Just because you don't like a policy, doesn't mean it's tyranny.

Privatization aggregates money into fewer and fewer hands, aggregates power into fewer and fewer hands. Privatization isn't the answer. A combination of both is better, a centrist/ mixed economy is better.

http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/politics-of-the-center-what-is-it.585857/

If there are issues with SS, Medicare, etc., it's a management issue, not an ideological one.

 

Bill is a money hungry capitalist, and he plays to all sides. Or put more realistically, a money whore and sleeps with anyone willing to pay him

 

they not only contacted Fl before the storm.. but after as well, FEMA will be working with FL for a while

what you did not hear is Biden attacking Florida like Trump would have a Blue State asking for help

 

None of these words means anything at all, the same as saying that they mean whatever anybody wants them to mean.

Trumpism? Words are several degrees from the truth of the matter. Words that contain "ism" can't even claim that much. ism suggests that there is a reality contained within the words themselves, an illusion which would even make the great Houdini proud.

 

Oh, you're perfectly fine with Russia gobbling up more sovereign territory in violation of UN Treaties. You'll be fine when she sets her sights on the rest of the Ukraine, the Baltics and Finland, too.

Gawd help us against fascism's appeasers.

 

Separate subject.

Off topic.

 

Why don’t you go ask Bill what he thinks of that little skit today. Go ask him what he thinks about the socialists today.

 

Not 'relief', relief is something for poverty.

But, policies which promote entrepreneurship I would support, such as those offered by the SBA, but one has to qualify, of course.

If one is impoverished because of a business failure, there are programs for poverty, but note that it's not 'because of business failure'. However, it is also logical that those who start businesses and fail are rarely poor, given that the wisdom (of resourcefulness) that led them to be entrepreneurs usually leads them to take precautionary measures to prevent poverty in case of failure.

The exception to the above principle, of course, is national or worldwide natural causes that are beyond everyone's control that were utterly unpredictable, such as the pandemic and the PPP forgivable loans that were 'relief' and designed to keep people employed during the pandemic.

 

No, because I supported SS and Medicare years before I reached 65 going back to the 60s and 70s.

But, you deflected away from my point, so I will repeat it:

given that republicans are calling democrats socialists for their support of social programs, the reason I call government programs 'socialism' is because that is how Republicans use the term.

Therefore, if you don't agree with that definition, then please tell everyone on the right to quit calling democrats and liberals socialists.

You can't have it both ways.

And, while you're at it, learn how to use the open and close quote tags properly.

 

Pretty sure AOC, or Alexandria Ocasio Cortez if you prefer, who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, would disagree with you here. Particularly since she wants to stop many profitable private industries because of (ostensibly) Global Warming. And then there is Mrs. Talib, whose proposed policy's are in line with AOC, who also wants banks to stop funding oil products.

Also, medical care is very profitable for private industries....yet you want to control them.

Seems to me you're not living up to your standard of "Democratic Socialism". Going by your standards then the only socialist policies that you'd be endorsing are things like NASA and other R&D type companies. Because those are not profitable for private industries to control.

 

You are not answering the question.

They are freely giving out student loans to anyone who did not repay their student loan already. They get that student loan to start a profession.

A young person decides to start a business so that he will also have a job. Why shouldn't he get the same opportunity?

Just as a side note. We can use more people in the trades than people with college degrees.

 

Not necessarily. The government currently mandates/regulates other matters. Like automatic tax collection, the government could mandate deductions (like they currently do to fund SS) to be deposited into a fund of your choice. It could act much like a 401K fund.

At some point people have to be responsible for their retirement. My idea of mandatory deductions from your paycheck would also include the stipulation that the funds could not be access until a certain age just like SS currently is.

You focus your attention on the "bad, mean" Republicans, while ignoring that Democrats have been kicking the can of SS insolvency down the road to nowhere for decades. The baby boomers (I'm one) is just starting to come into the ranks of collecting SS. When all of them enter how long do you think the current workers can support them?

https://www.fool.com/retirement/2021/09/09/is-social-security-going-bankrupt-3-reasons-not-to/

 

I think we all do. Perhaps we will have one again one day.