@RedShirtUofU“just because you don't agree with it
doesn't mean it isn't true.”Indeed.
To "ITT_Tech" again, just because you don't agree with it
doesn't mean it isn't true.The dividing line between left
and right wing politics is the role of government. If you believe in a system
that requires a strong central government then you are left wing. If you believe
in a system that looks to have the smallest government possible then you are
right wing. Another way of looking at it is who do you look to when there are
problems, the government or individuals. If you look to the government you are
left wing, if you look to individuals you are right wing.Since
Fascism falls on the side of big government involvement it is by definition LEFT
@the RedShirts"In their platform they stated..."I notice that of the 25 points of the 'Programme of the NSDAP' you
only picked three and one of the them only works because you quoted it out of
context. "We demand that the state be charged first with providing the
opportunity for a livelihood and way of life for the citizens..." continues
to read:"...If it should prove impossible to feed the entire
population, foreign nationals (non-citizens) must be deported from the
Reich"That is about anti-imigration. No decent leftist/socialist
would ever take such a stand."A KKK member will teach you that
white supremacy is right"Bad example. The KKK and White
supremacists often identify with fascist ideas and have frequently coopted Nazi
symbols to use in identifying themselves. White supremacists/KKK as a group
support Trump, and those few having white supremacist leanings who are holding
federal and state elected positions tend to have an "R" next to their
name."Go to marxist dot org"I did. It states:
"This domain may be for sale."
To "USouthernNDakotaatHoople" just because you have been taught
something wrong does not make it right.A KKK member will teach you
that white supremacy is right, but that doesn't mean it really is.A leftist will tell you how wonderful Communism is, but that doesn't mean
communism doesn't result in an authoritarian regime where everybody is
equally poor.Just becuase your teacher taught that Fascism is on the
right doesn't mean that it is.Go to marxist dot org and read
their article "Fascism and the Left" and see how a truly leftist group
acknowledges that Fascism is a left wing movement.
@@RedShirt, RedShirtUofU, Redshirt1701, RedShirtHarvard, RedShirtIlk,
RedShirtCalTech, RedShirtMIT, et al,“Fascism is akin to
Socialism.”Actually, it’s not.“It is
only considered to be "far right" if you are already at
communism.”LOL“Nice try, but still, you
can't deny the NAZI party platform that is Socialist in nature.”I can. And, so can most historians, social scientists, political
scientists, and my sophomore history teacher at Olympus High School.
To "USouthernNDakotaatHoople" actually, Fascism is akin to Socialism. It
is only considered to be "far right" if you are already at communism. If
the dividing line between right and left is the difference between looking to
government to control and solve problems and looking to individuals to solve
problems with little to no government control then Fascism is on the left.Nice try, but still, you can't deny the NAZI party platform that is
Socialist in nature.
@RedShirt, RedShirtUofU, Redshirt1701, RedShirtHarvard, RedShirtIlk,
RedShirtCalTech, RedShirtMIT, et al,"if the Nazi's were not
socialists, then what were they?"Fascists: radical, right-wing,
authoritarian ultra-nationalists. They were anti-liberalism, anti-communism,
anti-conservatism, anti-democratic socialist, and anti-equality promoting racial
purity and national unification under a strong dictatorship.To fight
the international growth of communism and socialism they saw the need to create
a regulated economy that funded and promoted a self-determined and racially pure
culture. They viewed violence positively as a means to an end that included a
nationalist dictator, militarization of the population to support land grabbing
to feed an expanding empire, placing the value of men over women and youth over
the elderly, revocation of citizenship for the racially impure and those who did
not support the fascist ideals, immediate deportation of foreign labor, and the
blocking of immigration.
Sc Matt He doesn’t have a plan and he believes it is and has
always been unconstitutional and that is fine he thinks that. The problem is he
isn’t willing to get past that ideal to fix SS. J Thompson The problem with your statement is good ideas never come to light
because ideology. Both the left and right are so entrenched in their ideology
(ideals) that are not willing to see merit outside of their echo chamber.
Honor System vs RulesCapitalism requires systems to be run by people of
good intentions, short of that rulesThe winners are & have
always been determined by whoever gets to write/enforce the rulesNot
having rules, means the strongest & the richest do as they will, especially
if the Ends Justify the Means, which will quickly supplant Good Intentions
To "USouthernNDakotaatHoople" if the Nazi's were not socialists,
then what were they?In their platform they stated "We demand
that the state be charged first with providing the opportunity for a livelihood
and way of life for the citizens...We demand the nationalization of all
(previous) associated industries (trusts)....We demand a division of profits of
all heavy industries....For the execution of all of this we demand the formation
of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central
parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general. The forming of
state and profession chambers for the execution of the laws made by the Reich
within the various states of the confederation. The leaders of the Party
promise, if necessary by sacrificing their own lives, to support by the
execution of the points set forth above without consideration."Those points in their platform ARE SOCIALIST ideals. From the state supplying
jobs to to the government owning businesses.They called themselves
Socialists, and their party platform promoted Socialist ideas.
@barfolomew "So, if Stalin wasn't a socialist, then why was
the country he helped to found and lead for 30 years called the Union of Soviet
SOCIALIST Republics?"I love it when people make this fallacious
argument and others like it. My personal favorite is "Hitler was a socialist
cuz NAZI stands for National Socialist..." I have to wonder,
though, when do you plan to relocate to that bastion of freedom, North Korea?
After all, their official name is "the Democratic Peoples Republic of
@shaun:"If you can tell me how you can still take SS without my
generation being taxed for it then I will give you the courtesy to
listen."Any fix to SS will cost money.That's
pretty obvious, right?And the sooner we fix it, the more time we
have to slowly implement the changes, rather than having them hit all at
once.That's also pretty obvious, right?If people
want to fix it, and are willing to sacrifice now for something better later, SS
can be fixed.But if people were willing to sacrifice now for
something better later, we wouldn't need SS because everybody would save
for his own retirement. Hence Mike's argument. And he's
right. We of course won't pay back people who've paid into the system
for the last 30 years anything close to what they could have earned in the stock
/ bond market.But we *could* invest all new contributions in a
"target 2065" (or another year, based on age) balanced retirement
account with an expense ratio of 0.05%, and not allow withdrawals until age
I agree with Mike Richards that the greatest snow job every perpetrated on
America is Social Security. As of 2015, Congress owed $5.1 TRILLION dollars to
the social security fund. They "borrowed" that money, i.e., took it
without permission from those who paid into it with no solid plan to ever repay
it. Currently, every man, woman and child in America would have to pay over
$15,000 to just refund the Social Security account. That
"borrowing" from a fund that was supposed to be held for our old age
(against our will when we were forced to participate), has been squandered,
totally. That shows us exactly what to expect if Socialism is allowed to gain a
foothold in America. Those who have no respect for the people will steal from
the people, enriching themselves with no concern for the devastation that they
leave behind.As for any "plan" to fix Social Security, that
is nonsense. The best economic minds have already struggled with
"fixes" and came up with nothing. If anyone thinks that he has a
"plan", then get on the first plane to Washington and stand before
Congress with your plan. You'll be a national hero more adored than George
@mike richardsWhat good does it to complain about SS but not offer
any solutions? I know it isn’t your program and never stated it was but
your refusal to come up with any workable solution just shows you want to be mad
about SS just to be mad.I want to find solutions but it is difficult
to work towards a goal when we can’t get past our ideals. I certainly
can’t do it alone and I suspect you would reject my ideas just because it
doesn’t fit your ideal. If you can tell me how you can still take SS
without my generation being taxed for it then I will give you the courtesy to
@ one old man"And lost nearly half of my investments when the
Cheney / Bush depression hit. And why was that?"Sorry, but more
revisionist history will not persuade people who understand. I know that because
CNN and MSNBC have repeated this lie for years, you folks on the left simply
swallow the pill. The financial crisis that hit us in 2008 was the
product of the Community Reinvestment Act which was signed by JimmyBoy Carter
and later egregiously expanded by BillBoy Clinton. It forced banks to give
mortgages to people who couldn't even come close to affording them all
under the guise of affirmative action for minorities. It all finally blew up in
our faces in 2008.
@ one old man (in your answer to me)""So, if Stalin
wasn't a socialist, then why was the country he helped to found and lead
for 30 years called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics?"Simple. It's because anything may be called anything by the people who
want to call it.Just as trump claims his businesses and now
administration are the "Greatest Ever."Labels don't
necessarily reflect reality."That's the silliest thing
I've ever heard. Comparing a statement of braggadocio by the President to
the naming of an entire country is just a bit out there, don't you think?
And saying that, "It's because anything may be called anything by the
people who want to call it" is about as ridiculous as our Founding Fathers
calling this country the 'United Socialist States of America' even
though they didn't really mean it. Even though I knew someone
on the left would twist the truth, I expected a better answer. The
truthful answer is that they were a socialist country in it's purist form.
Mike Richards wrote : "If you're really sold on Socialism, spend just
ten minutes with a spreadsheet program and find our what you would really earn
if you invested 15% of your paycheck each year in safe stocks and bonds."I did.And lost nearly half of my investments when the Cheney
/ Bush depression hit. And why was that?Because the GOP stymies any
attempts to regulate the Big Money Banks and Investors.
"So, if Stalin wasn't a socialist, then why was the country he helped
to found and lead for 30 years called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST
Republics?"Simple. It's because anything may be called
anything by the people who want to call it.Just as trump claims his
businesses and now administration are the "Greatest Ever."Labels don't necessarily reflect reality.
To "UtahBlueDevil " then take 10% of your income since you started your
career and assume an 8% interest rate (this is on the low side, the average is
about 10% interest rate). That leaves 5% to care for the handicapped. Between
age 22 and 67, assuming you make $50,000 per year and only get a 3% raise each
year, and you get an 8% interest rate on your money, you would have $1.9 million
at retirement. That would be good enough to generate at least $152,000 per year
income. At best, assuming that SS doesn't go away before retirement you
will get $100,000 per year from SS (now that assumes a 3% inflation rate between
now and retirement).Would you consider SS to be a good investment if
you only get 2/3 the amount that you could get from the Stock Market?To "Ranch" wrong. Religions cannot forcefully take your money. They
are no more a thief than your local food bank.
To "Shaun" if socialism is a scare tactic, give us a valid example of
where a nation has gone completely or nearly completely socialist and had
success close to what the US has had.To "Impartial7" and
"Hutterite" AOC, Bernie Sanders, the Green Party, and others of that ilk
have stated that they want Socialism.To "The Real Maverick"
what is this "unregulated capitalism" your ilk keeps talking about. The
only place I have ever heard of that was in Somalia when they had no government.
Outside of that there has always been regulations that capitalism has had to
follow. We typically call them property rights.The Nazis were
Socialists, their name was "National Socialist German Workers'
Party". They only went against the Socialists and Communists that
didn't share their vision, but they were socialists. Their party platform
also demonstrates that fact.Venezuela is an example of Socialism.
Even if it was global oil prices that pushed them into collapse, the fact that
they can't recover shows how well Socialism work to handle problems in the
market.To "EmmanuelGoldstein1984" actually the US is still a
Capitalist country.To "Marxist" Germany+Russia+China killed
72 million people.
In case you did not know, Dorothy, it is not an either, or, choice. We are a
mixed economy of capitalism/socialism already. We have developed into this mix
from the Progressive Era of the early 1900s, New Deal of the '30s, the
Great Society of the '60s, and since. Socialist democracies such as Canada
and nations of Europe are this mixed economy as well, with just a few more
socialistic elements (such as universal health care and higher education). Get
informed before commenting on the subject as simply black/white absolutes of
either socialism or capitalism. The United States economy is both.
@Marxist:"So when a person acquires education and skills at his
or her own expense to add to their productivity they are not entitled to benefit
from it?"At what time, ever, have I implied that people are not
entitled to the benefits of education and skills gained at their own expense?I can't remember a single instance. But I still
maintain that the person who provides equipment that makes somebody more
productive is entitled to a portion of the income produced by that piece of
equipment.It's really not as radical of an idea as you seem to
make it. My position is rather easy. Everybody is entitled to
income according to their contribution. I don't exclude anybody, at any
level. That's *your* angle. And frankly, it doesn't make
any sense. If somebody contributes to earning income, they get a
portion of that income. Even if that contribution was money to buy a machine.
The alternative, of course, is that the machine is not made, and
everybody is worse off.
@ The Real Maverick"“Stalin was a socialist.” No he wasn’t. He imprisoned socialists in his gulags. Stalin was a
communist."So, if Stalin wasn't a socialist, then why was
the country he helped to found and lead for 30 years called the Union of Soviet
Before holding Karl Marx as an example of a poor man who was shaking his fist at
the world, we should remember that he was born into a very wealthy family. His
father was a lawyer who inherited a great fortune. He married a wealth Prussian
woman who came from a wealthy family. He struggled in the best schools. After
marriage, he was assisted by Frederich Engels, whose money came from a wealthy
family dealing in cotton. His uncle, Benjamin Philips, a banker and an
industrialist assisted Marx when Marx lived in London. I haven't read
anything about Marx that showed that he was in the ditches with other laborers
or that he worked in the mines or sweatshops of his time. It was
easy for him to write about the abuse of wealth because he was a product of
wealthy people. Was it because he didn't inherit millions? Show me the
calluses on his hands and then tell me that he spoke for the working class.
We have many millionaries, Bernie Sanders for example, who will not
give away their money but preach that government must take our money. Let them
lead by example. Let they help the poor before they indulge themselves.
@SC Matt " And the extra productivity due to the machine rightfully belongs
to the person who provided the machine, not the person whose productivity was
enhanced by the use of the machine."So when a person acquires
education and skills at his or her own expense to add to their productivity they
are not entitled to benefit from it?
@ Marxist:"which allows employers to take the surplus produced
by employees as profit "Nope. It allows people to purchase
equipment that makes others more productive, and then share in the increase with
that other person.This right of a person to do this was never
recognized as legitimate by Marx. He equates such with theft. And
he's wrong. It is not possible to claim theft for something that
isn't yours. And the extra productivity due to the machine rightfully
belongs to the person who provided the machine, not the person whose
productivity was enhanced by the use of the machine.
Karl Marx made the point - the relationship between employers and employees is a
class relationship which allows employers to take the surplus produced by
employees as profit - surplus value. During the last fifty years the rate of
surplus value has become acute as statistics of wealth and income distribution
prove. Conservatives are simply incapable of looking at such data because such
does great damage to their world view. So they ignore it.
@Shaun - Sandy, UTMay 19, 2019 8:49 p.m.,I never advocated
Social Security. I am not responsible for it. It is not my program. Congress
has spent every cent in that fund and left us with an I.O.U.What
would YOU propose to set things right? How would YOU handle a program that
violates the Consitution. Sure there are some who say that it is Constitutional
based on the opinion of some judges, but how do you defend a program that, when
measured against the Supreme Law of the Land, fails to be legal? How would you
make the government accountable for the trillions of dollars that it
"borrowed". How would you repay everyone with fair interest (at least
8% since the government charges us 12% if we're late on our taxes)? What
is your solution?Social Security is a prime example of government
corruption with a Socialist program. It shows exactly what we should expect if
the government took over any company in America. We've already seen how
the owners of businesses were treated when Obama "rescued" GM and
Chyrsler. Were those school teachers and policemen ever paid back? It was
their retirement funds that he gave away.
Mike.... 15% of what income? $32,000 a year? $50,000? $100,000? The limit,
which i think is now 120-somthing thousand? You can't just throw a
challenge out there and then make a claim like that without real numbers. And
Social Security isn't just retirement. It also covers a plethora of others
like the gentlemen with Downs in our ward. Or those disabled. And
not everyone gets $24,000. My aged mother with MS that lives with me..... she
gets less than $12,000. She was a school teacher and never paid at the maximum
amount.And no one is talking about confiscating anyones property.
It is a Tax in income. No matter how you try to spin it otherwise. I wish we
lived in a world where we didn't need to tax to take care of the poor,
needy, widowed, disabled, aged. But it seems in our society that is the only
way people can be compelled to 'care' for these people. It's a
choice people have made.... they choose not to care for those in need, and a law
is required to force people to contribute to their care. Wish it were not
so.... but as a society we have clearly chosen to need to be compelled to care.
@Copybook Headings;You can add "religion" to your list of
thieves then. They are not essential, are subsidized by MY tax dollars as well
as YOUR tax dollars.
"Democrats have mangled another word. They say 'tax' when they
really mean "confistication'."And Republicans have
mangled another word. They say "tariff' and really mean tax.
Trump's signature issue du jour is his trade war with China in which
tariffs are levied to make Chinese good more expensive. The
American consumer pays those tariffs! How stupid do you think we are,
Republicans? Well some of us are, those who cheer these Trump
Taxes, errr Tariffs. You have been had.
Try again Real MaverickThe National Socialist Workers Party most
certainly was Socialist. They were opposed to communist style socialists but
they were full on socialists. They didn't take ownerhip of businesses away
from the owners, but once in power they exerted control over those businesses.
Hitler was a Socialist. Mussolini was the fascist.Communism is an extreme form of socialism in which the government takes
ownership rather than just control over all aspects of society. So yes Stalin
was a Socialist,Government services like police, firefighting and
roads does not equate to socialism. Government control of industry does.
@FrozenFractals:"Well it's a good thing progressives like
me don't want socialism"@Partial7:"Once
again; Nobody is promoting Socialism."So, what is Bernie Sanders
official party affiliation? It's not Democrat. It's independent, but
he calls himself socialist.I could point to other US politicians who
also call themselves socialists.So, if "nobody" is promoting
socialism, and "progressives [...] don't want socialism" then why
in the world are people supporting Bernie Sanders? A capitalist
system is far more responsive to needs than socialism is or ever will be. And I don't trust people who call themselves socialist or who
support those who do. Because I've never heard a socialist
answer either of two pretty vital questions to my satisfaction:Is
there a marginal tax rate that you consider "too high." (In fact, from
what I've seen, they're completely OK with marginal tax rates in
excess of 90%.)Does somebody who invests money instead of spending
it actually deserve the return that follows? (From what I see here, most
socialists think that earning money after providing tools to improve a
worker's productivity is akin to theft.)
So the "Socialist Boogeyman" has been dragged out from under the bed.
Seems to be working.
Socialism is theft. My money belongs to me; not the government. I'm willing
to part with some of it in exchange for essential services (i.e. police and fire
and a court system to settle contract disputes). But not for some bureaucrat to
reward unproductive labor.
Do you really think that somehow America would do socialism right when every
other country in history has got it wrong? Seriously? Remember it has never
happened in history. Socialism will always be run by a strong man, it
won't be Bernie that runs our country in socialism it will be someone just
like Donald Trump.
@mike richardsWhat is your solution to fix SS? I understand you
don’t like it but we need solutions not ideals.So how do you
propose keeping your SS while ending the program for future generations and not
saddling future generations with the programs debt to pay for your generations
Democrats have mangled another word. They say "tax" when they really
mean "confistication". They want to "confisticate" the wealth
of those who have leagally earned it and then give a small portion of that
wealth to the needy and the poor while government wastes the rest.Study Russia and the great wealth of the rulers compared to the extreme
poverty of the people. Look at Cuba. Look at Venezuela. Those nations started
by "taxing" all of the wealth out of their economies.The
Left would love to get you to think that taxing "excess" wealth is
somehow noble. It is confistication of property belonging to someone who
legally and lawfully earned it. It is not the government's property. That
property is private.If you're really sold on Socialism, spend
just ten minutes with a spreadsheet program and find our what you would really
earn if you invested 15% of your paycheck each year in safe stocks and bonds.
(Yes, 15%. The money paid in your behalf by your employer is your money paid as
a SS tax in lieu of wages.) At the end of 40 years, you would be receiving over
$80,000 per year just in interest. SS "pays" $24,000 per year. Another
example of government waste.
Freedom over government suppression, liberty over government confiscation, these
are easy choices.
Well it's a good thing progressives like me don't want socialism but
instead just want the European style capitalism with some more regulations and a
strong safety net.
Weather a child of God or a creature created by nature, the overriding built in
drive is to survive for as long as you can is the number one controller of your
actions. In this, human beings are just like every other creature that has or
had the blessing of life. Since wealth is the best to accomplish the prime
directive, we seek every way possible to obtain and keep money. All
of the “isms” Capitalism, Socialism and many other isms are just
ways that human beings devise to hoard the available money hoping that it will
give the longest life.
Let's do some fact checking.Tucket makes the claim "Under
the previous administration 20,000 or so additional regulations were
made"I tried to check that statement and found multiple
REPUTABLE sources that listed a number of about 4,000. The ONLY place I found
20,000 was in a site called The Daily Signal.The Daily Signal is
owned and entirely funded by the right-wing Heritage Foundation. Daily Signal
is rated at the "extreme right" side of things. Media Bias
is widely recognized as a dependable source if accurate information. It says this about Daily Signal: " In review, The Daily Signal reports on
political news and policy with a right leaning bias in both story selection and
wording . . . . [ they were ] critical of President Trump’s decision to
leave Syria, arguing that pulling out will result in “at some point having
to fight them again on U.S. soil.” In other words, the Daily Signal
supports a more right leaning interventionist Neoconservative military
approach." And "The Daily Signal consistently casts doubt
on the role of humans in climate change. Further all opinion pieces favor the
right and denigrates the left."Do your homework, folks.
Again, Mike, taxation isn't socialism. No one is saying take property of
one group or all people, nationalize it, and take away personal property.
It's statements like your that sends us into the death spiral of over hyped
rhetoric. Please Mike, find me a quote by a Democrat that says the government
should take over anyones private property. Elizabeth, Bernie, take your
pick.We keep going in this spiral. But socialized medicine......
but per the definition of socialism.... government owns all and allocates. Even
European and Canada systems have private providers.The majority of the
world, even the US, live in a hybrid systems.So, do we need to
choose between full boar socialism, or on constrained capitalism? I don't
think so.... and I wish people would stop playing loose with the subject and
pretending we are being forced to make choices we are not.
We often invoke body.counts when criticising socialist regimes of the past. But
the good old capitalist USA has killed masses of people, e.g. the Iraq invasion,
100,000's dead for no good reason.
This letter illustrates the “false binary” fallacy. In the US we
have a mixed economy. Nobody wants either pure capitalism or pure socialism.
To pretend otherwise is just political demagoguery.
Lots of fake news here:“Socialism leads to misery.”As does unregulated capitalism. “Socialism is
responsible for millions of deaths in the 20th century alone.” Source?“The Nazis were socialists.”No they
weren’t. One of the first groups persecuted by Nazis were the socialists.
Just read the poem on Nazi oppression:- First they came for the
Socialists, and I did not speak out; Because I was not a Socialist. Then
they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out; Because I was not a
Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out;
Because I was not a Jew.Then they came for me and there was no one left to
speak for me.-“Stalin was a socialist.” No
he wasn’t. He imprisoned socialists in his gulags. Stalin was a communist.
“Venezuela was very rich and then went socialist.”It was very rich under socialism too. It lost its wealth to the drop in
global oil prices and sanctions. “People don’t know
history. It is pathetic and sad.”I agree! People should
definitely learn history.
Should I cite Democrats or should I let Democrats say that they are not
promoting socialism. Is it my duty to list hundreds of speeches made by
Democrat candidates? Should I quote Bernie Sanders? How about Elizabeth Warren
and her "wealth tax"? How about all of the others who want to control
what we eat, what we drink and what we are paid?I've lost track
of all the candidates. It's early in the campaign and most of them will be
gone after the 1st debate, but as far as I've read in the media, not one
Democrat running for office is promoting capitalism. Not one. America became
America because of Capitalism. America will cease to be America if those who
hate capitalism are elected to office.
It's letters like this from people who have absolutely no idea what they
are writing about that scare me to death. Here is an excellent book
that every caring and sensible American needs to read: Republic of Lies by Anna
Merlan.This book does a very good job of educating us about the
influence of social media and other communication devices on TRUTH in modern
times -- and how trump and others have used it to manipulate gullible people
with an endless string of half-truths and outright lies.I regard
myself as well informed, but I was absolutely shocked by things I learned from
this book. I followed up on sites she mentions and was simply blown away. It
explains a lot. I got onto some of the websites and saw how much
pure gibberish is there and how headlines from those sites become oft-repeated
claims by those who support trump and others like him. It's obvious that
many people read nothing more than headlines -- almost all deliberately
distorted or outright false.Many of those false headlines show up
verbatim in DN comments. The only way this can change will be if
more Americans seek the REAL TRUTH and then vote accordingly.
Just who is it that is promoting this socialism? I must be missing some
meetings, because I'm just not hearing of it. I prefer capitalism,
too. But we can have capitalism and still have a proper not for profit health
care system that looks after everyone far more cost effectively than our current
system along side of capitalism.
It is amazing that Americans are even having this Capitalist/Socialist debate.
What is there to debate? Socialism leads to misery. Socialism is responsible for
millions of deaths in the 20th century alone. The Nazis were socialists. Stalin
was a socialist. Venezuela was very rich and then went socialist. The list goes
on. People don’t know history. It is pathetic and sad.
Once again; Nobody is promoting Socialism. Except the GOP, for its latest scare
tactic. Their current version of capitalism is really a combination of
Socialism. Where they take your tax dollars for personal profit. For profit
schools. For profit prisons. For profit "Security forces" like
Blackwater. For profit Healthcare. The list goes on. True capitalists would
eschew any taxpayer funding and raise it through private investment if it is
such a good idea.
Socialism means larger and larger number of unelected bureaucrats whose main
goal is not to solve problems, but to get higher wages. Under the previous
administration 20,000 or so additional regulations were made and the economy was
sluggish. Under Trump many have been removed and more should be. Under
socialism something that is not often mentioned is people lose incentive. China
would love to have us become socialists as it would drastically restrain our
Republicans are using socialism as a scare tactic. We can’t have debates
if both sides use fear.