David:
Are Democrats actually Socialists?
Doug:
Well, our country is built on socialistic ideas. So, yes, I guess we all are socialists, to a degree.
David:
I hate to pop your liberal-arts bubble, but Robin Hood was not one of the founding fathers. He was actually a character from an English novel, not even a fictional American. The federal income tax, progressive or otherwise, to provide funding for government programs was not created until 1913 with the 16th amendment.The country was founded on the ideals of individual freedom and limited government, not exactly socialistic ideals.
But, one of the current presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination is a Socialist. If Bernie Sanders continues with his current momentum, he will be your candidate. When asked what the difference is between a Socialist and a Democrat, DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not provide any answer. The interviewer gave her two chances to provide some distinction between Democrats and Socialists, and she came up empty. So again, I ask you, are Democrats and Socialists the same, or is there a difference?
Doug:
I understand: your country stopped being built by 1913. My country is still being built. My country has a constitution with amendments, and continues to get better. My country has adopted many of the great altruistic ideas of the world: take care of your own, never let someone go hungry, share some of the wealth to help the needy. We all share some of that socialistic ideology, don't you think?
By the way, "liberal arts" doesn't have anything to do with "being liberal". Literally it refers to the education of topics "worthy of a free person" so that one can "take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate" (like we are doing here).
David:
A key difference between you and me is I would rather voluntarily share some of my money to help those who need it, by choosing agencies that I find to do the best job at delivering those services. You believe the government should force redistribution of wealth.
Doug:
Don't you think that it is more fair to require everyone to give to the common goals of the country? Otherwise, you would get those that don't pull their weight. Isn't "everyone pulling their weight" a Republican ideal?
David:
I thought you were someone who believed in "choice". It appears you're making an argument that anyone who doesn't pay taxes "isn't puling their weight" in this country. I agree that that isn't fair.
Doug:
Not all choices are equal! You can't make choices where it will hurt others. On the other hand, I am in favor of most any choice where there isn't another person to hurt. Yes, I know you think every fertilized egg should be able to vote.... but only if it has proper ID.
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist? Yes, perhaps even a bit more than Ronald Reagan. All US Presidents since perhaps 1933 (when the WPA was created) or maybe 1935 (when Social Security was created) have been somewhat socialistic.
David:
Yes, Ronald Reagan was certainly a big-government, government-solves-everything kind of guy. Oh wait. No, he wasn't. And, Bernie Sanders is not just somewhat socialistic; He's a Socialist. Period.
Doug:
I don't think your ideal of Reagan matches what actually happened:
David:
Reagan spent more on the military because Jimmy Carter had gutted it. The military is one of the jobs the Federal government was created to do. And, it brought about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Social Security is scheduled to run out of money in less than 10 years. If Congress combines SS disability into the general SS funds (which Democrats are pushing to do), it may not last until 2018. Reagan's plans would have put it on a much better footing than it is now, but he couldn't get the bill through, due to the failings of Congress. A president can't (or shouldn't, according to the Constitution) act without Congress on these matters. You can't just cherry-pick numbers out of the contextual air to make outlandish claims. (I reserve that right for myself, as needed, however…)
Doug:
I think you mean "facts" not "numbers" because those points are all true, right? You might have an excuse for why he did each, but you can't also say that they are "outlandish." And many of those points are socialistic in nature. All US Presidents since 1933 have been.
But to the point, I'd say that Democrats are generally more socialistic than Republicans. Democrats generally value those projects that are too big to do otherwise. I'm thinking of the national highway system, Postal service, education, space travel, caring for the homeless and needy, etc.
I saw the interview with Congresswoman Schultz. If I were her, I would avoid the word "socialism" like the plague. Why? Because there are people that don't understand the idea, and think that it is bad. I would also avoid "vaccination", "gun safety", "planned parenthood", and "community organizer". Why? Because, for some reason, even though all of those items are all good things, some people have been trained, Pavlovian-style, to foam at the mouth over certain phrases.
David:
So, you can't answer the question honestly, either. To paraphrase, Democrats are "more Socialistic than Republicans". Therefore, you are saying they are not actually Socialist. How are they different, and why is the candidate for your party not actually going to be a member of your party?
Doug:
You mean like Trump was a member of my party? I guess that really doesn't mean anything, huh?
David:
Bernie Sanders has already proposed 18 Trillion in new spending, and has plans to completely dissolve the healthcare insurance industry, to be replaced with a single-payer government-run system.
His plans call for the biggest expansion of the federal government in history. Is that what you're backing?
Doug:
As opposed to continuing to let our country fall into a state of disrepair? Sanders' plan sounds good to me! I want to make America great again, whatever that means.
David:
I'm glad to hear you admit that after eight years of President Obama, two of which were completely under the control of Democrats, that the country is in disrepair.
Doug:
I'm not glad that the country is in disrepair. You can blame whomever you want, but let's fix it.
David:
However, it appears you are never going to answer the question. If Socialism is such a bad word, I would expect you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to jump at the chance to illustrate the differences between the Democrats and Socialists. But you won't, because you can't.
Doug:
It is not a bad word. It is one that some have been trained to foam at the mouth when they hear it. Like "voldemort."
David:
Still, no answer.
Doug:
Voldemort!
David: The Democratic party is the Socialist Party of America now.
Doug:
I wish. I read the Socialist Party platform, and it does sound pretty appealing though.
David:
You just said you would spend us into devastating debt to, what? Apparently you believe the country is in "disrepair", and we need all sort of government involvement and middle-class tax dollars to save it. Decreasing government involvement is what is needed. Our country now ranks 46th in the world for ease in starting a small business. That's due to restrictive regulations on just about everything. For Pete's sake, Doug, President Obama is now requiring barbers and hair stylist to be government-certified and licensed to do their jobs. Who pays for that?
Doug:
The country has many roads and bridges that are in disrepair: "An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges in the most recent federal National Bridge Inventory showed that 65,605 were classified as 'structurally deficient' and 20,808 as 'fracture critical.' Of those, 7,795 were both — a combination of red flags that experts say indicate significant disrepair and similar risk of collapse." That is more than 10% of our infrastructure that needs attention.
Now, you shine a light on the problems it takes to start a new business. In the US, it can take up to 5.5 days to start a new business. That is pretty quick, but we can do better.
Now, you are talking about licenses for independent contractors. It is a complex landscape of who wants licenses for what. Sometimes it is the professionals themselves (like in Utah, where these are state laws) and Michelle Obama is arguing for loosening laws.
David:
As we have seen during the past few years, the government is too big to do it's job.
Doug:
No it is not.
David:
Hillary had no idea that the folks in Benghazi were asking for help? Kathleen Sebelius had no idea the HHS Obamacare web site was not anywhere close to being ready? Emails got deleted right when Congress started looking into the IRS targeting scandal, and no one knew who ordered that action? Veterans died waiting for care, staff were cooking the books to hide the department failings, and yet no one in charge knew anything about it?
Doug:
Sounds like these people needed more help, not less.
David:
More help? If you believe what they are saying, the heads of all of the major departments, and most of the agencies of government have no idea what is even going on under their watch.
The CEO of Volkswagon resigned because his company cheated on emissions testing in California. He denied knowing anything about it, but resigned because he's the CEO, and he's responsible for his company. He also filed a complaint with the German Courts to start an investigation into his own company to find who was responsible. Carly Fiorina was hired to save Hewlett-Packard, and she did so. But because of her actions, stock prices fell, and she was ousted. The company was saved, and the stock holders did very well because of her actions. But at the time, when things went poorly, the CEO was responsible. That's how it is in the real world. When you are in charge, you are responsible. I don't recall the government saying GM "needed more help" when they allowed faulty ignition switches to cause the deaths of dozens of people. I don't recall you saying that big investment firms just "needed more help" when they triggered the housing bubble or collapse. No, I believe you wanted CEOs to go to jail.
But, in government, no one is accountable.
Doug:
You do know how voting works, right? You vote them out. You don't complain about the government, but the people you voted in. Fiorina made some of the worst business decisions ever. The CEO of VW doesn't want to go to jail.
David:
None of the people listed above were elected to those cabinet positions. They were appointed. They can't be voted out. And, no one in government ever gets fired. But, hopefully, some of them may eventually go to jail.
And bigger government will be less accountable. I don't know how you could try to argue any other way. More money (Bernie's plan calls for an additional 18 Trillion), more programs, more bureaucracy, more waste, and less transparency. In other words, Socialism.
By the way, you still have not answered the question….
Doug:
Just because there is more work being done doesn't have any bearing on accountability. It sounds like you have been voting for the wrong people. Under the right steward, more money provides better infrastructure, which provides a more stable environment for small and large businesses. How could you argue any other way?
David:
Bigger government certainly doesn't mean there is more work being done. At least we now know what you and the Socialist-Democratic Party are for.
Doug:
Yep, the Democratic Party and I are for a better infrastructure for the country, better healthcare for everyone, better environment for all, and living wages for every citizen. And now everyone knows thanks to you. Great; we were trying to keep this all a secret.
David:
To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Perhaps we'll move on to the topic of the national debt next…..
Doug:
To quote Voldemort: "They never learn. Such a pity."
Are Democrats actually Socialists?
Doug:
Well, our country is built on socialistic ideas. So, yes, I guess we all are socialists, to a degree.
David:
I hate to pop your liberal-arts bubble, but Robin Hood was not one of the founding fathers. He was actually a character from an English novel, not even a fictional American. The federal income tax, progressive or otherwise, to provide funding for government programs was not created until 1913 with the 16th amendment.The country was founded on the ideals of individual freedom and limited government, not exactly socialistic ideals.
But, one of the current presidential candidates for the Democratic Party's nomination is a Socialist. If Bernie Sanders continues with his current momentum, he will be your candidate. When asked what the difference is between a Socialist and a Democrat, DNC chairman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz could not provide any answer. The interviewer gave her two chances to provide some distinction between Democrats and Socialists, and she came up empty. So again, I ask you, are Democrats and Socialists the same, or is there a difference?
Doug:
I understand: your country stopped being built by 1913. My country is still being built. My country has a constitution with amendments, and continues to get better. My country has adopted many of the great altruistic ideas of the world: take care of your own, never let someone go hungry, share some of the wealth to help the needy. We all share some of that socialistic ideology, don't you think?
By the way, "liberal arts" doesn't have anything to do with "being liberal". Literally it refers to the education of topics "worthy of a free person" so that one can "take an active part in civic life, something that (for Ancient Greece) included participating in public debate" (like we are doing here).
David:
A key difference between you and me is I would rather voluntarily share some of my money to help those who need it, by choosing agencies that I find to do the best job at delivering those services. You believe the government should force redistribution of wealth.
Doug:
Don't you think that it is more fair to require everyone to give to the common goals of the country? Otherwise, you would get those that don't pull their weight. Isn't "everyone pulling their weight" a Republican ideal?
David:
I thought you were someone who believed in "choice". It appears you're making an argument that anyone who doesn't pay taxes "isn't puling their weight" in this country. I agree that that isn't fair.
Doug:
Not all choices are equal! You can't make choices where it will hurt others. On the other hand, I am in favor of most any choice where there isn't another person to hurt. Yes, I know you think every fertilized egg should be able to vote.... but only if it has proper ID.
Is Bernie Sanders a socialist? Yes, perhaps even a bit more than Ronald Reagan. All US Presidents since perhaps 1933 (when the WPA was created) or maybe 1935 (when Social Security was created) have been somewhat socialistic.
David:
Yes, Ronald Reagan was certainly a big-government, government-solves-everything kind of guy. Oh wait. No, he wasn't. And, Bernie Sanders is not just somewhat socialistic; He's a Socialist. Period.
Doug:
I don't think your ideal of Reagan matches what actually happened:
- Reagan promised “to move boldly, decisively, and quickly to control the runaway growth of federal spending,” but federal spending “ballooned”
- He bailed out Social Security in 1983 after attempting to privatize it, and set up a progressive taxation system to keep it funded into the future
- He promised to cut government agencies like the Department of Energy and Education but ended up adding one of the largest — the Department of Veterans’ Affairs, which today has a budget of nearly $90 billion and close to 300,000 employees
- He also hiked defense spending by over $100 billion a year to a level not seen since the height of the Vietnam war.
David:
Reagan spent more on the military because Jimmy Carter had gutted it. The military is one of the jobs the Federal government was created to do. And, it brought about the collapse of the Soviet empire. Social Security is scheduled to run out of money in less than 10 years. If Congress combines SS disability into the general SS funds (which Democrats are pushing to do), it may not last until 2018. Reagan's plans would have put it on a much better footing than it is now, but he couldn't get the bill through, due to the failings of Congress. A president can't (or shouldn't, according to the Constitution) act without Congress on these matters. You can't just cherry-pick numbers out of the contextual air to make outlandish claims. (I reserve that right for myself, as needed, however…)
Doug:
I think you mean "facts" not "numbers" because those points are all true, right? You might have an excuse for why he did each, but you can't also say that they are "outlandish." And many of those points are socialistic in nature. All US Presidents since 1933 have been.
But to the point, I'd say that Democrats are generally more socialistic than Republicans. Democrats generally value those projects that are too big to do otherwise. I'm thinking of the national highway system, Postal service, education, space travel, caring for the homeless and needy, etc.
I saw the interview with Congresswoman Schultz. If I were her, I would avoid the word "socialism" like the plague. Why? Because there are people that don't understand the idea, and think that it is bad. I would also avoid "vaccination", "gun safety", "planned parenthood", and "community organizer". Why? Because, for some reason, even though all of those items are all good things, some people have been trained, Pavlovian-style, to foam at the mouth over certain phrases.
David:
So, you can't answer the question honestly, either. To paraphrase, Democrats are "more Socialistic than Republicans". Therefore, you are saying they are not actually Socialist. How are they different, and why is the candidate for your party not actually going to be a member of your party?
Doug:
You mean like Trump was a member of my party? I guess that really doesn't mean anything, huh?
David:
Bernie Sanders has already proposed 18 Trillion in new spending, and has plans to completely dissolve the healthcare insurance industry, to be replaced with a single-payer government-run system.
His plans call for the biggest expansion of the federal government in history. Is that what you're backing?
Doug:
As opposed to continuing to let our country fall into a state of disrepair? Sanders' plan sounds good to me! I want to make America great again, whatever that means.
David:
I'm glad to hear you admit that after eight years of President Obama, two of which were completely under the control of Democrats, that the country is in disrepair.
Doug:
I'm not glad that the country is in disrepair. You can blame whomever you want, but let's fix it.
David:
However, it appears you are never going to answer the question. If Socialism is such a bad word, I would expect you and Debbie Wasserman Schultz to jump at the chance to illustrate the differences between the Democrats and Socialists. But you won't, because you can't.
Doug:
It is not a bad word. It is one that some have been trained to foam at the mouth when they hear it. Like "voldemort."
David:
Still, no answer.
Doug:
Voldemort!
David: The Democratic party is the Socialist Party of America now.
Doug:
I wish. I read the Socialist Party platform, and it does sound pretty appealing though.
David:
You just said you would spend us into devastating debt to, what? Apparently you believe the country is in "disrepair", and we need all sort of government involvement and middle-class tax dollars to save it. Decreasing government involvement is what is needed. Our country now ranks 46th in the world for ease in starting a small business. That's due to restrictive regulations on just about everything. For Pete's sake, Doug, President Obama is now requiring barbers and hair stylist to be government-certified and licensed to do their jobs. Who pays for that?
Doug:
The country has many roads and bridges that are in disrepair: "An Associated Press analysis of 607,380 bridges in the most recent federal National Bridge Inventory showed that 65,605 were classified as 'structurally deficient' and 20,808 as 'fracture critical.' Of those, 7,795 were both — a combination of red flags that experts say indicate significant disrepair and similar risk of collapse." That is more than 10% of our infrastructure that needs attention.
Now, you shine a light on the problems it takes to start a new business. In the US, it can take up to 5.5 days to start a new business. That is pretty quick, but we can do better.
Now, you are talking about licenses for independent contractors. It is a complex landscape of who wants licenses for what. Sometimes it is the professionals themselves (like in Utah, where these are state laws) and Michelle Obama is arguing for loosening laws.
David:
As we have seen during the past few years, the government is too big to do it's job.
Doug:
No it is not.
David:
Hillary had no idea that the folks in Benghazi were asking for help? Kathleen Sebelius had no idea the HHS Obamacare web site was not anywhere close to being ready? Emails got deleted right when Congress started looking into the IRS targeting scandal, and no one knew who ordered that action? Veterans died waiting for care, staff were cooking the books to hide the department failings, and yet no one in charge knew anything about it?
Doug:
Sounds like these people needed more help, not less.
David:
More help? If you believe what they are saying, the heads of all of the major departments, and most of the agencies of government have no idea what is even going on under their watch.
The CEO of Volkswagon resigned because his company cheated on emissions testing in California. He denied knowing anything about it, but resigned because he's the CEO, and he's responsible for his company. He also filed a complaint with the German Courts to start an investigation into his own company to find who was responsible. Carly Fiorina was hired to save Hewlett-Packard, and she did so. But because of her actions, stock prices fell, and she was ousted. The company was saved, and the stock holders did very well because of her actions. But at the time, when things went poorly, the CEO was responsible. That's how it is in the real world. When you are in charge, you are responsible. I don't recall the government saying GM "needed more help" when they allowed faulty ignition switches to cause the deaths of dozens of people. I don't recall you saying that big investment firms just "needed more help" when they triggered the housing bubble or collapse. No, I believe you wanted CEOs to go to jail.
But, in government, no one is accountable.
Doug:
You do know how voting works, right? You vote them out. You don't complain about the government, but the people you voted in. Fiorina made some of the worst business decisions ever. The CEO of VW doesn't want to go to jail.
David:
None of the people listed above were elected to those cabinet positions. They were appointed. They can't be voted out. And, no one in government ever gets fired. But, hopefully, some of them may eventually go to jail.
And bigger government will be less accountable. I don't know how you could try to argue any other way. More money (Bernie's plan calls for an additional 18 Trillion), more programs, more bureaucracy, more waste, and less transparency. In other words, Socialism.
By the way, you still have not answered the question….
Doug:
Just because there is more work being done doesn't have any bearing on accountability. It sounds like you have been voting for the wrong people. Under the right steward, more money provides better infrastructure, which provides a more stable environment for small and large businesses. How could you argue any other way?
David:
Bigger government certainly doesn't mean there is more work being done. At least we now know what you and the Socialist-Democratic Party are for.
Doug:
Yep, the Democratic Party and I are for a better infrastructure for the country, better healthcare for everyone, better environment for all, and living wages for every citizen. And now everyone knows thanks to you. Great; we were trying to keep this all a secret.
David:
To quote Margaret Thatcher: "The problem with Socialism is that eventually you run out of other people's money." Perhaps we'll move on to the topic of the national debt next…..
Doug:
To quote Voldemort: "They never learn. Such a pity."
No comments:
Post a Comment
Please be kind and respectful. Thanks!