Never, which is why it is weird to bring up the fact that changes might potentially lead to problems while ignoring that the current system itself is far from perfect (to put it mildly).When did this happen?
Upvote
0
Never, which is why it is weird to bring up the fact that changes might potentially lead to problems while ignoring that the current system itself is far from perfect (to put it mildly).When did this happen?
Yes, I know, which is one of the reasons that the idea that "A government created economy is by definition socialism." is a bad definition.The government prints money to fuel capitalism and free enterprise, not socialism.
But enough about our farm subsidizes.
Going back to what I actually posted, the plans of the president elect do not involve implementing socialism not matter how hard you harp on a feel good empty phrase within them.
Right, so we're back to where we always were--that "socialism" is just a word that means giving your hard-earned tax dollars to people whose lifestyle choices you disapprove of.
Using your definition of communism, I don’t see how “handouts” to the disadvantaged is automatically communism. It does not require the government to collect all production and distribute it equally. We give people “handouts” now, under a clearly capitalistic system.
What would you call it when the American taxpayer effectively foots the bill in terms of shoring up the federal tax base that is not contributed to by a giant corporation like Amazon, which didn't pay anything in 2017 and 2018 (and actually received a refund of $129 million in 2018, thanks to tax credits and deductions)?
It'd be hard to call Amazon "indolent", but surely before making claims about who Americans are willing to share their hard-earned money with, a wider net should be cast than just "myself or the dirty rotten so-and-so's who refuse to work". I'm willing to bet that if you asked the average American worker if they were willing to contribute more so that mega-corporations wouldn't have to pay any (or so that other mega-corporations could get away with paying poverty level wages to the point that their employees need to be on federal assistance despite working full-time jobs, as is the case with regard to Walmart), they'd say no. You need only look at how the article on Amazon at the first link begins to get a sense of that -- and that's a story about them finally paying taxes!
Yes, I know, which is one of the reasons that the idea that "A government created economy is by definition socialism." is a bad definition.
If other countries can . America can. Unless America is a third world country.Government can't afford to insure everyone without seriously limiting medical services.
If other countries can . America can. Unless America is a third world country.
I agree , the way COVID-19 was worse than a third world country. But we should be better ,than 3th world countries. As for heath care in America needs to do better.America is quite a bit different than other countries. And we do resemble third world countries in some ways.
I didn't say they did.
I said that in order to implement his plan socialism would be necessary. This is true of most liberal economic plans over the years.
I agree , the way COVID-19 was worse than a third world country. But we should be better ,than 3th world countries. As for heath care in America needs to do better.
Well that's some lovely non-sense.
Yeah, how could someone realize that their plan requires something that it in no way calls for nor necessitates. Oh, right, they used a phrase.Well, it's like a person who wants to build a house. They need certain tools and materials to do it. Biden needs socialism to build his 'house' (although I doubt if he realizes it).
Yeah, how could someone realize that their plan requires something that it in no way calls for nor necessitates. Oh, right, they used a phrase.
That's quite the ability to read in volumes of things that are not there.More than a phrase. He revealed that he wants to provide everything for everyone. To accomplish this he must use all the force of government, which requires adopting a socialist economic scheme.
Handouts was the word you used.Handouts aren't payouts.
Surely you don’t believe that? He’s not even appointing progressives to his cabinet. He ran against Bernie’s European-model socially democratic policies. He refuses to adopt the green new deal as a policy. Socialists hate him and only supported him to get Trump out. When you call anyone to your left a Marxist, no one will take you seriously.More than a phrase. He revealed that he wants to provide everything for everyone. To accomplish this he must use all the force of government, which requires adopting a socialist economic scheme.
That mistake is what I was attempting to address in the previous post. The definition of Socialism is not "there is some government in existence."
If the government does anything at all, you appear to me to be are saying that this makes that government Socialist or at least partly Socialist. It doesn't.