Jump to content
Simon

Political Discussion Thread (With Rules)

Recommended Posts

46 minutes ago, CrosshairCollie said:

Did you ever wonder how many senior citizen tea-party/MAGA/'I hate socialism' people cash their social security checks in a total lack of self-awareness?

 

I suspect it's a number approaching 100 percent.

 

A while back (I think it was during the start of the tea party, I know it was well before Trumplestiltskin was in office) I read an article where the reporter attended a tea party rally.  Some elderly attendees were going on about people who don't "pay their own way" but get things paid for by the government.  The reporter noticed that a number of them were riding around on motorized mobility scooters, and noted that those were probably pretty pricy.  Without an ounce of self-awareness, the people said that they didn't know how much they cost, since they got them from Medicare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While I wait for the various images to load...

 

Kathleen Parker's latest syndicated column raises an interesting speculation. As she notes, Donald Trump's established MO is to throw stink bombs and act crazy to distract people and command the news cycle so people don't pay attention to other things. What else is happening that he might not want us looking at? Maybe... Jeffrey Epstein? They're buds -- she notes reports of a party where the attendees consisted of Messrs. Epstein, and Trump a bevy of young ladies, and no one else. Kind of makes one go, "Huh."

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The list CrooshairsCollie posted reminds me of an editorial cartoon I saw years ago. An Angry White Man expostulated that government paying for health care was socialized medicine! And the post office was socialized mail delivery! And public schools were socialized education! And the military was socialized defense! And... Well, there were only six panels, but clearly this could have gone on much longer.

 

(Fun fact: In The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels specifically call for public schools. Also central banks and a number of other institutions that are now about as controversial as pre-sliced bread. Yes, I have in fact read The Communist Manifesto.)

 

Dean Shomshak

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

InvestoPedia has a good article on whether nor not Social Security is a Socialist program.  Here's a snippet.

 

The Bottom Line

It's interesting to remember that the U.S. got the idea for a social-security system from 19th century Germany.

That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time.

The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government.

 

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, traditional liberal Democrats and newfangled progressive Democrats are both Social Democrats, using state intervention to offset the ill effects of market capitalism and providing a safety net for all citizens.  They're not really out to seize control of private corporations but instead to regulate and reform them.  So calling Democratic policies "socialist" is just hyperbolic silliness.  We're just trying to continue doing what FDR started, what LBJ continued, and what Obama revived.  But social democracy does require a robust tax base, which is really what upsets conservatives.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Pariah said:

Well, Donald Trump clearly is not a fan of public schools. If he were, he wouldn't have put Betsy DeVos in charge of them.

 

I doubt he knows anyone who went to a public school. Aside from the ones who clean his pool or carry his golf clubs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm starting to wonder if Trump thinks he holds the Reality Stone and anything he says becomes real.  He's claiming he tried to quiet and stop the 'send her back' chants at his rally while he was very clearly seen on stage smugly enjoying them and saying nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, he's just of the school that believes if you say something often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it's the truth in spite of proof to the contrary. Unfortunately he has a lot of evidence suggesting he's right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

No, he's just of the school that believes if you say something often enough and loudly enough, people will believe it's the truth in spite of proof to the contrary. Unfortunately he has a lot of evidence suggesting he's right.

I haven't seen this much gaslighting since the 'cigarette lighter and farts' fad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think, instead of addressing the definition of socialism,  I have been thinking of maybe approaching these issues with what specifically causes socialism to 'damage' society and how that relates to what the conversation is talking about.

 

I've had some back-and-forth arguments, and they've usually summed up as 'people having different priorities'.  ie- one person is talking about how belief is just an excuse to for individuals to do bad things, the other is talking about how belief galvanizes groups into dangerous mob behavior.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/18/2019 at 9:25 PM, ScottishFox said:

InvestoPedia has a good article on whether nor not Social Security is a Socialist program.  Here's a snippet.

The Bottom Line

It's interesting to remember that the U.S. got the idea for a social-security system from 19th century Germany.

That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time.

The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government.

 

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out – it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism.

 

I think on every level that social security is a socialist programme.  It is often the way that a government will implement a lesser form of something that radicals are proposing to take the wind out of the radicals sails.  It is harder for the radicals to whip up the populace against the government when they cannot offer something different.  While Bismark may have introduced a social insurance policy, a socialist programme, it was because this was the most effective way of dealing with radical socialists - it is why centrist parties dominated most liberal democracies - simply stealing the slogans from their radical opponents that had a wide resonance and implementing paler versions of the ideas behind the slogans.

 

I went to a lecture in Cambridge where it was postulated that the only true free market in the world right now was drugs.  They are completely outside government control and the production and distribution systems care only about maximising the profit for the guys at the top.  Anything that gets in the way of the flow of money is dealt with, there is no thoughts about diverting the money for other things (that do not also make money).  Drugs money in this market will not create jobs, will not deliver healthcare, will not do science and will not pay for national defence, roads or schools.  It is pure capitalism.  It is also something that the USA has declared war on....

 

Doc

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OTOH I remember during the conflicts with the massive Colombian drug cartels in the Eighties and Nineties, that the cartels often had substantial support within their home communities because they put no small amount of money into charitable works benefiting the local populace. Granted, at least some of the motivation for that was to cultivate the public's assistance and protection; but is that so different from governments' motivations?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Absolutely.  When the cartels got big enough they became quasi governments and brought with them the trappings of government (but not democracy).  The problem is that government of this nature is way back to the warlords of old and the only law is that imposed at the point of a sword (or gun).  It remains a free market simply because the expenditure comes not from obligation but because the people at the top can see an economic benefit from that spending, not because they think it is the right thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...