Reply With Quote
Give me an example of a country, at any point in history, that wasn't socialist then.
Exactly, the military doesn't get to choose who they protect, they get paid to protect everybody against the evildoers. That's their mission. Whereas a private company might deem economically ridiculous to spend 15+ years in Afghanistan, the principal mission for the Military has to do with security, not making money. It will inherently at odds with profit motive a lot of times, but there's a higher mission. In those cases almost always the government steps in with a program, that's tax payer funded.
Give me an example of a country, at any point in history, that wasn't socialist then.
The military doesn't protect us from evildoers. They do what the congress and POTUS tell them. So by "extension" the congress and POTUS are protecting us from evil doers, but then that's why they are elected.
When is the last time you saw military personnel protect a US citizen on US soil? They were sent to the border against the will of the people (supposedly) so they are not there to protect the people. That's what local LEO, federal and state policing agencies do.
Since the cons ution preamble starts with "We the People" and contains "provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare", was the US founded as a socialist country?
There's a slippery slope ahead.
Forms of socialism exist since Ancient Greece... the more modern flavors came from the social inequalities towards the end of the Industrial Revolution, in the mid 18th century. The hijacking form Marx and then expansion to communism gave it a terrible name, and to this day some people conflate socialism with communism, or equate it to Marxism–Leninism, which mostly set up a political system for what was generally an economic tool.
Whether it took the shape of fighting meritocracy, oligarchy, etc it's been pervasive in almost every society.
The POTUS doesn't do whatever he wants either (or shouldn't). Per the Cons ution that created his government (Article II, Section 2):
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
The POTUS is the commander, but the service the Military provides is for the United States (all people), not the POTUS or Congress.
Wasn't the military deployed 4 months or so ago in US soil to protect US citizens from the alleged caravan of immigrants? They sure as heck weren't sitting in Mexican soil.
There is no slippery slope at all. You won't find the word Capitalism anywhere in the Cons ution either. The closest you'll come is the 5th Amendment enshrining property rights, and even then, it provides that government still can take property as long as there is "just payment".
It's ok, there's no boogeyman. Different forms of socialism existed since before the US existed. It's also neither all socialism or all capitalism. Mixed systems are all over the world based on need, including the US.
I want her to keep talking as much as possible.
I doubt CC is a prime example, income-wise, of those who watch Fox.
The right being extreme is a matter of opinion.
Like the house of Democrats baiting Trump.
“I could do the wall whenever”
Definition of emergency please ...
Eyup. Most of them, if memory serves. Easy to put that where it needs to be, since they were up for renewal in the middle of the Great Recession. One generally doesn't raise taxes during periods of economic retraction, which is fairly sensible.
Why do some of you just assume everyone has monolithic stances of each side?
The slippery slope is in assuming that, because there are aspects of socialism in the US, that any other form of socialism is good. The boogeyman seems to be the fear that socialism won't take hold.
Team sports
Both parties have moved towards the extreme, as party identification slides. We may see an emergence of a third party at some point.
Feel free to provide that elusive definition of "socialism".
Not a slippery slope argument in the formal sense.
Any definition of "socialism" for you?
I would put forth a fair working definition of "social democracy" being private ownership of capital with a strong social safety net.
I accept the definition in Webster or that El Nono provided. El is trustworthy, he won't try to pull a fast one.
pedo?
(assume reference to Cosmic)
We are in many ways overlapping. Where we differ is in the steady diet of Fox-based propaganda. That kind of thing takes its toll.
Democrats get full credit for those two programs.
Unfortunately for your "who gets the blame for debt" though, is that both are solvent, and don't contribute to the deficit, because they are paid for by independent taxes. They are self financing.
Sounds like just about when (2037) some of us are ready to collect SS, we'll only get 3/4.
https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/...v70n3p111.html
You may wish to read their entry then, especially the notes on usage relative to "social democracy" and "communism"
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
I prefer that private capital and property remain in private hands (means of production), which deviates from the dictionary definition of webster. People should be able to own their own businesses and companies.
Most on the right use it interchangeably with that of "communism", which I would not support.
Does this sound about right?
I would not support outright communism. I do think we can, and should, do more for people who are struggling, and think that capitalism will have to be saved from itself.
Ah yes, actuarial projections. Moving into my area of expertise.
What struck me most here from this 2010 projection was the inherent assumption that Americans would live longer. That trend has reversed. Too many guns, too many cars, too much sugar, and too many opiods.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart...tes-180970942/
Part and parcel of any actuarial analysis is its sensitivity to changes in its starting assumptions. The farther out you go, the easier it is to change that with small changes in the present.
FWIW the most recent actuarial report from 2018 for the short term:
https://www.ssa.gov/oact/TR/2018/II_D_project.html
Notable in 2010: Boomers started retiring (table is form most current report).:
Figure II.D6.—Long-Range OASI and DI Combined Trust Fund Ratios Under Alternative Scenarios
[Asset reserves as a percentage of annual cost]
2030 or so will be the breaking point, if nothing changes, and the longer we wait to fix the system, the harder it will be to do so.
Potential fixes: raise taxes now, increase immigration markedly. The first shores up reserves, the second increases future cash flows.
Both of which are currently violently opposed by the current Trump party.
Potential fix: cut benefits now. extending life.
More opposed by Democrats than Trump party, but would encounter a huge backlash at the polls for which ever party led the effort.
So, cutting benefits now is political suicide.
The other solutions are viable. Democrats will, once again, be forced to rescue this.
The alternative is simply getting rid of it, of course, as many on the right have been wanting for eight decades. Also not feasible, given demographics, and the fact that so many save so little. A body blow for families, and real potential for starvation for those elderly with no children to step in. (edit: forget the fantasy that private charity could step in, the job is too big)
Last edited by RandomGuy; 03-02-2019 at 09:24 AM. Reason: clarity
Pretty much. We tried the most market-based reform, aka Affordable Care Act (Obamacare), and Conservatives all over it, which is ironic because it was a conservative idea to begin with.
The main reason that conservatives opposed this was that the Scary Black Man proposed it. They were so bent on not giving him a win, they sabotoged their own idea, and will, also ironically, be forced to swallow universal health care.
LOL, the irony of you making the first comment.
And you're in tune to KWs rage system. Only difference between him and you is he's probably had pussy that wasnt his dead mother's.
Kill yourself, you worthless, mouth breeding, -for-brains worm.
The crushing grip of reason. Not that I have much room to criticize anybody for occasionally losing one's temper.
What if "occasionally one's temper" is excessive, tired schtick that is there to poke and prod when bored on a troll board? That's the entirety of Bonneriffic. Dude is as one dimensional and tired as his namesake.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
