Letter: I choose capitalism over socialism

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • RedShirt_CollegeofHardknocks Dearborn, MI
    May 24, 2019 3:27 p.m.

    @RedShirtUofU

    “just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean it isn't true.”

    Indeed.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 24, 2019 8:19 a.m.

    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 wing.

  • RedShirt_ITT_Tech Salt Lake City, UT
    May 23, 2019 2:35 p.m.

    @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."

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    May 22, 2019 3:12 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtUSouthernNDakotaatHoople Bismarck, ND
    May 22, 2019 2:33 p.m.

    @@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.

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    May 22, 2019 7:29 a.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtUSouthernNDakotaatHoople Bismarck, ND
    May 21, 2019 7:37 p.m.

    @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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 21, 2019 6:41 p.m.

    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.

  • VisiGuest Mancos, CO
    May 21, 2019 5:53 p.m.

    Honor System vs Rules
    Capitalism requires systems to be run by people of good intentions, short of that rules

    The winners are & have always been determined by whoever gets to write/enforce the rules
    Not having rules, means the strongest & the richest do as they will, especially if the
    Ends Justify the Means, which will quickly supplant Good Intentions

  • RedShirtMIT Cambridge, MA
    May 21, 2019 3:59 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtUSouthernNDakotaatHoople Bismarck, ND
    May 21, 2019 3:31 p.m.

    @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 Korea."

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    May 21, 2019 6:12 a.m.

    @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 retirement.

  • J Thompson SPRINGVILLE, UT
    May 21, 2019 5:51 a.m.

    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 Washington!

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 20, 2019 5:16 p.m.

    @mike richards

    What 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 listen.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2019 4:36 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2019 4:26 p.m.

    @ 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.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    May 20, 2019 3:20 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    May 20, 2019 3:17 p.m.

    "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.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 20, 2019 3:16 p.m.

    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.

  • RedShirtUofU Andoria, UT
    May 20, 2019 2:57 p.m.

    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.

  • nonceleb Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2019 1:20 p.m.

    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.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    May 20, 2019 11:54 a.m.

    @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.

  • barfolomew Tooele, UT
    May 20, 2019 11:49 a.m.

    @ 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 SOCIALIST Republics?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2019 10:53 a.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2019 10:20 a.m.

    @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?

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    May 20, 2019 9:15 a.m.

    @ 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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 20, 2019 8:11 a.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2019 7:58 a.m.

    @Shaun - Sandy, UT
    May 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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    May 20, 2019 7:50 a.m.

    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.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 20, 2019 7:38 a.m.

    @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.

  • unrepentant progressive Bozeman, MT
    May 20, 2019 7:15 a.m.

    "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.

  • Zabilde Riverdale, UT
    May 20, 2019 6:48 a.m.

    Try again Real Maverick

    The 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.

  • SC Matt Saline, MI
    May 20, 2019 6:27 a.m.

    @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.)

  • Ranch Here, UT
    May 20, 2019 6:05 a.m.

    So the "Socialist Boogeyman" has been dragged out from under the bed. Seems to be working.

  • Copybook Headings Draper, UT
    May 20, 2019 4:57 a.m.

    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.

  • Nichol Draper West Jordan, UT
    May 20, 2019 4:49 a.m.

    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.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 19, 2019 8:49 p.m.

    @mike richards

    What 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 social security?

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2019 6:36 p.m.

    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.

  • Rick for Truth Provo, UT
    May 19, 2019 6:18 p.m.

    Freedom over government suppression, liberty over government confiscation, these are easy choices.

  • Frozen Fractals Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2019 5:26 p.m.

    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.

  • Ultra Bob Cottonwood Heights, UT
    May 19, 2019 4:12 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    May 19, 2019 2:41 p.m.

    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.

  • UtahBlueDevil Alpine, UT
    May 19, 2019 2:29 p.m.

    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.

  • marxist Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2019 2:21 p.m.

    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.

  • EmmanuelGoldstein1984 Salt Lake City, UT
    May 19, 2019 12:52 p.m.

    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.

  • The Real Maverick Spanish Fork, UT
    May 19, 2019 12:41 p.m.

    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.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, UT
    May 19, 2019 12:25 p.m.

    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.

  • one old man MSC, UT
    May 19, 2019 11:33 a.m.

    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.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    May 19, 2019 11:24 a.m.

    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.

  • Flipphone , 00
    May 19, 2019 11:03 a.m.

    It is amazing that Americans are even having this Capitalist/Socialist debate.

  • Gretschman Draper, UT
    May 19, 2019 10:30 a.m.

    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.

  • Impartial7 DRAPER, UT
    May 19, 2019 10:11 a.m.

    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.

  • What in Tucket Provo, UT
    May 19, 2019 10:02 a.m.

    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 economy.

  • Shaun Sandy, UT
    May 19, 2019 9:39 a.m.

    Republicans are using socialism as a scare tactic. We can’t have debates if both sides use fear.