The Next President is...

[Darth]

 

 

[Seriously]

5 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

Seriously, I tried reading your post and seeing things from your POV.  But it’s just so obvious— you say “not socialism: free college for everyone.”  It just simply isn’t true.  There is NOTHING free.  Everything comes at a cost.

 You’re describing the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another.  One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter.  It never works and can’t work, humans reject it.

First, I don't necessarily think free college is a good idea. I honestly just haven't made up my mind on it. I want to put that out there so that you don't automatically assume that I'm Karl Che Lenin Stalin reincarnated. 

Second, the label of socialism doesn't apply to the government providing free college for everyone because the state doesn't own the means of production (in this case of knowledge), they're simply paying private institutions for the knowledge. This is a semantics argument which I feel dirty using, but it's important because if you're going to argue that a policy won't work because it's socialism, then you need to apply that label correctly. 

Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious. 

 

Edited September 4, 2018 by Seriously

[Seriously]

4 hours ago, Engineer2Pilot said:

Socialism: I graduated bottom of UPT but I still deserve a Fighter because equality! 

It used to be like that by the way. I think the current merit based system started in the 80s. Hacker posted a paper on the history of UPT a few years back that talks about that. 

[nsplayr]

6 hours ago, tac airlifter said:

You’re describing the government taking wealth from one person and giving it to another.  One person pays the cost, another benefits without paying, and the state is sole arbiter.  It never works and can’t work, humans reject it.

You are describing taxation. Taxation is not socialism. Let’s allow words to still have meaning.

Edited September 5, 2018 by nsplayr

[bfargin]

1 hour ago, Seriously said:

First, I don't necessarily think free college is a good idea. I honestly just haven't made up my mind on it. I want to put that out there so that you don't automatically assume that I'm Karl Che Lenin Stalin reincarnated. 

Second, the label of socialism doesn't apply to the government providing free college for everyone because the state doesn't own the means of production (in this case of knowledge), they're simply paying private institutions for the knowledge. This is a semantics argument which I feel dirty using, but it's important because if you're going to argue that a policy won't work because it's socialism, then you need to apply that label correctly. 

Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious. 

 

Part of the definition of socialism pertaining to implementation - "policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism."  So yes, government taking/confiscating money from citizens (taxing their labour) and using it to pay for education, health-care, (insert pet program here) is absolutely in line with socialism. (Tax policy is a different discussion but does come into play) The government or community at large might not actually "own" the education system or healthcare system but by taking our money and buying it they are absolutely "owning" it, as the definition goes on to read " owned or regulated by the community or government as a whole".   We are so far down the path towards complete socialism it frightening. The policies and practice of socialism isn't an ON or OFF switch, its gradients and we all know it.

Edited September 5, 2018 by bfargin

[Prozac]

24 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Part of the definition of socialism pertaining to implementation - "policy or practice based on the political and economic theory of socialism."  So yes, government taking/confiscating money from citizens (taxing their labour) and using it to pay for education, health-care, (insert pet program here) is absolutely in line with socialism. (Tax policy is a different discussion but does come into play) The government or community at large might not actually "own" the education system or healthcare system but by taking our money and buying it they are absolutely "owning" it, as the definition goes on to read " owned or regulated by the community or government as a whole".   We are so far down the path towards complete socialism it frightening. The policies and practice of socialism isn't an ON or OFF switch, its gradients and we all know it.

So...public schools, the interstate highway system, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, the military, public water systems, electric systems, and utilities, NPR, PBS, etc, are all telltale signs of our steady march into socialist dystopia and should be abandoned immediately? Or just those things on the list you don’t agree with?  If your ideal capitalist society is a completely “free hand” with no government involvement or oversight in anything, where everything is privately owned and operated and no one pays any taxes, well, you’re right that we are pretty far down the “socialism path”. Some of us like fire departments though. 

[Smokin]

1 hour ago, Seriously said:

...Last, if free college is socialism, then is free K-12 education also socialism? How is that any different? All we would be doing is taking people from a 12th grade education level up to a 16th grade education level. This could be a complete waste of money, but again, I'm not trying to talk about that merits of free college. I'm trying to get you guys to realize that calling everything you disagree with "socialism" or "fascism" is specious. 

 

As has been pointed out, it is not 'socialism' but it is a significant step towards socialism.  And yes, free universal education K-12 is also a significant step towards socialism and is a good indicator as to how 'free' college would change our graduate education system in America.  I have only a couple friends who went to private school as a kid, but I know lots of people who went to a private college.  Many of the private colleges will close when people have the option of going to school for free vs paying everything themselves.

 

Rather than looking to take what has worked really well in America (capitalism) and applying it towards parts of our country that need significant improvement (health care, education, etc), a large group of people seem to want to take the worst parts of our country (a grossly oversized government at most levels) and apply that to what needs fixing.  The inevitable result will be a complete shit show that will spiral to the parts of our country that work well like the relatively free market economy.  

 

It is easy to see how people label things as 'socialist' that are not actually socialist in and of itself, but will take a significant step towards socialism when taken to their logical conclusion.  You are correct that the ACA is not completely socialist, but it is trending our health care system away from free market economics towards the socialism end that many seem to desire. 

 

The ironic part of military members speaking in support of things that point towards socialism is that the military is about as socialist as you can get in America.  How many times do you speak well of the MPF, finance, or similar things in the military?  Virtually everything that is broken in the military is a great example of what our country as a whole would look like under people like that lady.  Having lived in countries with socialized medicine and governments that lean far further socialist than ours, I can tell you that absolutely nothing of that style of government will help us.  Government and bureaucracy is both naturally inefficient and naturally self interested in getting bigger and more control.  The bigger and more control it gets, the more time, energy, and wealth is wasted simply maintaining it.

[bfargin]

47 minutes ago, Prozac said:

So...public schools, the interstate highway system, hospitals, fire departments, police departments, the military, public water systems, electric systems, and utilities, NPR, PBS, etc, are all telltale signs of our steady march into socialist dystopia and should be abandoned immediately? Or just those things on the list you don’t agree with?  If your ideal capitalist society is a completely “free hand” with no government involvement or oversight in anything, where everything is privately owned and operated and no one pays any taxes, well, you’re right that we are pretty far down the “socialism path”. Some of us like fire departments though. 

Yes, many of the things you list are definitely towards the socialist end of the spectrum and I agree that not all of them are bad (the highway system for example has been beneficial to the whole country and every citizen supports its existence through fuel taxes (consumption tax not a tax on labour). Others on the list would probably be better served with private entities being paid directly by the citizens for services rendered (some utilities are even private companies here in TN). Schools should definitely be taken over by private organizations and controlled at the local level rather than federal or even state. There's a reason your average Catholic/Private school kicks even the best public school's ass in every measured category (immediate accountability to parents). Since the 1910's and definitely after FDR (1930's on) the country has trended significantly away from the idea of free markets with oversight by government to the idea that government (legislators) should control and tax to support most aspects of our lives (while at the same time legislators are passing the buck of actually legislating).  Legislators write laws like the ACA, Federal Tax Law, etc that have no real substance and then rely on federal and/or state employees in the appropriate agency to write the regulations and policies we all have to abide by. I know the legislature has to delegate some tasks (procedures maybe?) for actual implementation, but not the whole ball of wax like they currently tend to do.  But, I'm as far right politically as JFK so am considered a right winger today.

[Prozac]

27 minutes ago, bfargin said:

Since the 1910's and definitely after FDR (1930's on) the country has trended significantly away...

Let me ask you this: Was the average American better off then? Was the country as a whole?

[Sua Sponte]

11 minutes ago, Prozac said:

Let me ask you this: Was the average American better off then? Was the country as a whole?

Depends on what color your skin is.

[Prozac]

15 minutes ago, Kiloalpha said:

Let's not conflate the drastic changes in technology and global trade between those time periods with your desire to say "See! Socialism did that!"

I am not a socialist. I do not advocate for socialism. I would argue though that progressive policies such as anti child labor laws, women’s suffrage, clean air and water legislation, workplace safety, weekends, regulation of banks, etc, along with public works projects like the TVA, and the aforementioned interstate highway system have benefited all Americans immensely. 

[BashiChuni]

I can’t believe people advocate for socialism. How dumb are you?

[bfargin]

1 hour ago, Kiloalpha said:

Let's not conflate the drastic changes in technology and global trade between those time periods with your desire to say "See! Socialism did that!"

2, and I would say that in spite of that trend we are better off now. Most scholars agree that FDR's policies (well intentioned as they might have been) prolonged the depression.

[Lord Ratner]

Since we're on the semantics train, and since Seriously is still engaging in this debate in (very) good faith, here's where I see the wording issue getting cloudy.

I think you are getting a hung up on the absolutist definition of socialism, where the government has to own the means of production. It's not just the production that makes a system socialist, the "distribution and exchange" are also controlled, or regulated, by the government. I don't think we're going to see a system anytime soon where the government overtly tries to take control of the production, such as nationalizing the industries. But they are very much moving towards controlling the output, and taxation is a part of that. The more of your (and corporate) income that the government taxes, the closer we get to that type of socialism.

Another key distinction here is choice. Many of the programs that you point out as not being socialistic hinge on whether or not you end up with a choice. Schools are a perfect example. There are many "liberals" who are very much against the idea of school choice. So if the government is providing a public school system, you are not allowed to pick which school your kids go to, then it doesn't really matter what you want to call it, it's socialism.

Same thing goes for medical care. We can move to Canada for an example. They have the government-run system that many progressives desire, and recently a case was brought before their Supreme Court where the government did not want a doctor to open up a practice that was separate from the state-run system. As what schools, if you take Choice out of the equation it's socialism.

Taxation is not socialism, but it is an integral and necessary part of it. And when you see taxes approach absurd levels (like 50% of your stuff when you die), it's probably the smoke to socialism's fire, since it costs a lot to run socialist programs.

A somewhat reliable litmus test is to look at what the program is doing. If the government is taking your money in order to fund a program that promotes choice, then it's probably not socialism. The interstate highways are a good example of this. They are facilitators of business, travel, choice. Same goes for bridges, and fire stations, and many financial regulators. Because capitalism requires some measure of oversight, once again, because people are flawed.

[Lord Ratner]

You are describing taxation. Taxation is not socialism. Let’s allow words to still have meaning.

Not quite correct. If the money from taxes is being given directly to the other, especially if based on their income status ("to each according to his needs") then yes, this is a form of socialism.

If the money is being used by government for a program that provides a non-monetary benefit to all Americans (such as the military), then it is not at all socialism.

[Lord Ratner]

Another semantics point: there is nothing liberal about today's Democrat party. Liberalism is exactly the concepts today more associated with the right of American politics, like freedom of expression and the sovereignty of the individual. If anything, libertarians are the closest thing we have to liberals in modern America.

[Lord Ratner]

And while we're picking apart everything Seriously had said, the right and left are not polarizing at similar rates: https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/pew-research-center-study-shows-that-democrats-have-shifted-to-the-extreme-left/

And going way back to the estate tax, you still haven't addressed your claim that the rich in America are only such if their parents were wealthy. If we really want to get to the heart of the matter, it's stupid claims like this that are the fuel for socialistic policies that fail time after time after time.

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/269593

https://www.thomasjstanley.com/2014/05/america-where-millionaires-are-self-made/

https://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/real-1-percent

https://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0810/7-millionaire-myths.aspx

The things you believe are simply incorrect. That's makes your prescriptions irrelevant.

[brickhistory]

Say, in a socialist society, doesn't somebody ultimately make the decisions, allocate the resources, and decide winners and losers?

Is there a site where I can download the application for that gig?

In doing some casual research, I'm not finding a poor socialist leader.  Heck, even Bernie is a multi-millionaire and, to the best of knowledge, he's never, since his late twenties, been anything other than a politician.

Yes, please, I'll have some of that.

My neighbors can eat cake...

[dream big]

51 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Say, in a socialist society, doesn't somebody ultimately make the decisions, allocate the resources, and decide winners and losers?

Is there a site where I can download the application for that gig?

In doing some casual research, I'm not finding a poor socialist leader.  Heck, even Bernie is a multi-millionaire and, to the best of knowledge, he's never, since his late twenties, been anything other than a politician.

Yes, please, I'll have some of that.

My neighbors can eat cake...

Bernie was on welfare in his early adult years, then somehow became a politician and is now a millionaire.  No one becomes rich in politics unless you are a corrupt crook.  I’d pay money to see him run again, watching him get evicerated will be entertaining. 

[MooseAg03]

By opposing school choice, democrats are hurting inner city kids (whose parents overwhelmingly support democrats) by locking them in to under performing schools. If their parents had the option of using their tax dollars to help pay for private education, it benefits everyone (except public school teacher’s unions). Nevada passed an awesome school voucher program that would have eased overcrowding in the terrible Clark County schools. Guess what happened, the ACLU and others sued and had it halted.

Look at the rise of charter schools, Austin TX has seen enrollments drop as charter schools grow. People are fed up with mediocre results from government run schools and they are looking elsewhere. Why in the world would we do that to universities? They are already overpriced due to the ease of obtaining government backed student loans. Government intervention has made college too expensive. Government doesn’t make anything better.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[admdelta]

How to use poor urban children as an excuse to enrich private interests with tax money, in 6 steps.

Step 1: implement standardized tests. 

Step 2: make standardized tests the basis for deciding which schools get the most funding.  

Step 3: Use poor test performance to deliberately sabotage inner city schools by diverting their funding to wealthy suburban districts. 

Step 4: As performance in inner city schools is compounded by diminished budgets, decry the “failings” of public education, push for idea of “school choice.”

Step 5: create voucher system to put more kids in private schools using tax payer money. 

Step 6: ???

[for] PROFIT!!

Edited September 5, 2018 by admdelta

[admdelta]

1 hour ago, dream big said:

Bernie was on welfare in his early adult years, then somehow became a politician and is now a millionaire.  No one becomes rich in politics unless you are a corrupt crook.  I’d pay money to see him run again, watching him get evicerated will be entertaining. 

Not hard to have a family net worth of 2 million when you make nearly 200k a year on your salary and your wife is the president of a university. If he’s a corrupt crook then he’s not very good at it. 

[MooseAg03]

How to use poor urban children as an excuse to enrich private interests with tax money, in 6 steps.
Step 1: implement standardized tests. 
Step 2: make standardized tests the basis for deciding which schools get the most funding.  
Step 3: Use poor test performance to deliberately sabotage inner city schools by diverting their funding to wealthy suburban districts. 
Step 4: As performance in inner city schools is compounded by diminished budgets, decry the “failings” of public education, push for idea of “school choice.”
Step 5: create voucher system to put more kids in private schools using tax payer money. 
Step 6: ???
[for] PROFIT!!

You have a reference for where #3 happened? I’m not sure how other states work, but in Texas the school districts set their local property tax rates. They had a law for a while where rich districts were actually required to give money to the poorer districts.

Standardized testing is a joke but I think this grand plan is a bit much. People already are picky about where they live in order to be in the “best” districts. This is one reason bad schools get worse, people up and move somewhere with better schools and the students left behind are those without the means to do so or whose parents really don’t care about their education. How would being able to choose a school not based on your address be a bad thing? As I mentioned earlier, it already happens with charter schools that are government funded.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[tac airlifter]

On 9/5/2018 at 4:32 AM, nsplayr said:

You are describing taxation. Taxation is not socialism. Let’s allow words to still have meaning.

I’m not describing taxation.  I’m saying “free college” isn’t free and the idea that a commodity someone must pay for is “free” sits at the heart of our philosophical disagreement. 

Yes words have meaning.  “Free” that you pay for and I receive isn’t “free” at all.

[Prozac]

38 minutes ago, tac airlifter said:

I’m not describing taxation.  I’m saying “free college” isn’t free and the idea that a commodity someone must pay for is “free” sits at the heart of our philosophical disagreement. 

Yes words have meaning.  “Free” that you pay for and I receive isn’t “free” at all.

You’re correct. No educated person is arguing that college should be “free”. The question is: is college for anyone who wants it a worthwhile investment in the country’s future? For the record, I’m not sure it is, but I certainly think it’s a debate worth having. Of course many will dismiss the idea offhand because Socialism.

Fact: every advanced western society, including ours, incorporates a mix of capitalist and socialist traits. Some lean more one way or another. We, of course, trend to the capitalist side of things, and overall, I think that’s a good thing. Pure, Adam Smith capitalism though? That would be as much a disaster as Soviet style socialism.