GodLovesCats
Well-Known Member
- Mar 16, 2019
- 7,400
- 1,329
- 48
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Protestant
- Marital Status
- Single
I have no idea what that means, but the government owning everything is Communism, not socialism.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Have you ever heard Bernie advocate for state ownership of the means of production?
Would you then define socialism for us please?
A form of government in some countries, which do not include the United States.
I can't tell you a specific definition, butb was taught socialism and democracy are not the same thing.
Socialism is the government controlling how things are produced and distributed, but not what is produced and sold?
Distributism seems very much like a trojan horse. Someone or something must control the distribution, to whom, and how much.
I ask a third time: How much of my labor, in a numerical value representing the percentage, should the state own?
Obama is a moderate Democrat, so the attempts to paint him as part of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party are really questionable. He is no socialist. (On the other hand, I know people on the far left who complain that Elizabeth Warren is a fairly conservative capitalist, so this goes both ways.)
I don't think the Democratic Party has moved too far to the left, if by left we mean economic policy. I'm not happy about the constant focus on identity politics, so I dislike that aspect of progressivism, but I think it's high time to have a real discussion on modern socialism.
Modern socialism is a contradiction in terms. Like saying old baby or thin Sumo wrestler.
Well now it would no longer be called capitalism would it?I don't see what's suddenly so controversial about putting any sort of limit whatsoever on economic freedom.
Mandating people give money to private, for profit companies might be a form of progression, but it sure aint in the direction of the left.
As noted by the article, his healthcare reform was originally developed by the Heritage Foundation. It was also implemented first (and successfully) in Massachusetts by Mitt Romney.
It was based on a Republican plan.
Barack Obama actually changed his stance on that from children only during his first campaign to all ages while Congress tackled health care requirements. I never understood what the big deal was about it since all drivers are required to have vehicle insurance and nobody complains that should be optional.
Well now it would no longer be called capitalism would it?
M-Bob
As I replied to the other poster, it was still a "progressive" action, was it not?
The other poster asked for someone to point out anything progressive from Obama, I did.
Uh, yes you do. Is it different in Australia? Because in the US with the exception of Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security, all insurance is provided by private for profit companies.You dont pay your vehicle insurance to a for profit private company
You dont pay your vehicle insurance to a for profit private company
Uh, yes you do. Is it different in Australia? Because in the US with the exception of Medicaid/Medicare and Social Security, all insurance is provided by private for profit companies.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?