The DNC on the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist

[StLucieBengal]

(07-31-2015, 03:07 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The chairs of the parties often are not very good representations of their party, to me anyway.

The chairs before these two I thought did a good job. Steele got challenged becuase he supported the tea party groups and the establishment didnt want that .... And Dean was effective as DNC chair.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-31-2015, 06:14 PM)fredtoast Wrote: All provided by for-profit private insurance companies, doctors, and hospitals.


Don't know what you mean by "hands all over", but as far as I know the entire energy industry is owned and operated by private for-profit companies.

This is conveniently ignorant, Fred.  To the surprise of no one who reads your posts. 

I think you've railed on lobbyists many times....you just outlined WHY lobbyists have jobs, and HINT HINT HINT it isn't because the US isn't becoming increasingly socialist.  As I've said, regulations and taxes often make actually owning/running the business indistinguishable from not.

THAT is socialism - distinct from communism, which the difference you don't seem to grasp.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-31-2015, 06:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Not sure what the exact difference is, but socialism involves government control of the means of production.

No it doesn't (not directly - HINT HINT HINT taxes and regulation).  You don't understand the difference between the two. You admit this, so stop arguing with me.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-31-2015, 07:56 PM)CharvelPlaya Wrote: Socialists thinks that capitalism is good for socialism

To grossly oversimplify, socialism is really just a realization that you don't have to actually run the business to expropriate the wealth generated.  Nor do you actually have to be the decision-maker to control the decisions made.

I'm not saying an effective capitalistic system doesn't have socialistic elements, but you have to watch out for govt using "the greater good" to advance their own agendas and personal wealth.

[JustWinBaby]

(07-31-2015, 08:31 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: She has always been a baffoon and pretty much useless as DNC chair.

She's a good general for the "divide and conquer" strategy.  She reminds me of a couple of Seinfeld characters.

[GodHatesBengals]

I don't think right-wingers understand just how little most of us care about whether we're "socialists" or not...

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 05:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote:  As I've said, regulations and taxes often make actually owning/running the business indistinguishable from not.

THAT is socialism - distinct from communism, which the difference you don't seem to grasp.

Got anything to back that up?

Just because you say it does not mean it is true.

Regulating a business has nothing to do with ownership.  Do the profits go to the government or to private parties.

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 05:15 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: No it doesn't (not directly - HINT HINT HINT taxes and regulation).  You don't understand the difference between the two.  You admit this, so stop arguing with me.

Then post something that explains the difference.  You really have no credibility on th subject.

I stand by my assertion that socialism requires the government to be the owner of the means of production.  So please post a link to soemthing that says "regulation" is the same as "socialism".

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 05:13 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: I think you've railed on lobbyists many times....you just outlined WHY lobbyists have jobs, and HINT HINT HINT it isn't because the US isn't becoming increasingly socialist.

So the proliferation of lobbyist, which many people consider the most basic symbol of capitalism, proves the USA is becoming more socialists?

That is some messed up logic.  The fact that private profits are influencing our government more and more proves that we are becoming more socialist?

Corporations are recording record profits and their percentage of the tax burden is at an historic low. This is pretty much the opposite of socialism.

[StLucieBengal]

(08-01-2015, 11:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then post something that explains the difference.  You really have no credibility on th subject.

I stand by my assertion that socialism requires the government to be the owner of the means of production.  So please post a link to soemthing that says "regulation" is the same as "socialism".

Socialism is where the gov regulates everything with a heavy hand. Supports and forces unionization. The high costs of regulation and a unionized workforce limit competition. It's a "free" system as long as you participate under the strict rules laid out by the government.

We have loads of socialist stuff. All that safety net bs is socialism. Which coincidently in the end is what brings down socialist countries.

It all sounds good, having a safety net, taking care of the kess fortunate.... But the reality is the government has no business deciding who gets what ....

Corruption happens in any form of government.

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 01:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:   The high costs of regulation and a unionized workforce limit competition. 

Not nearly as much as price fixing by unregulated monopolies.

[fredtoast]

(08-01-2015, 01:11 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote:  Supports and forces unionization.   

How does the government support and force unionization?

Giving workers the choise to unionize is not the same as supporting.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2015, 11:52 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Got anything to back that up?

Just because you say it does not mean it is true.

Regulating a business has nothing to do with ownership.  Do the profits go to the government or to private parties.

Give it up.  You already admitted you don't know what you're talking about, so I'm not sure how anyone can argue with what you don't know and, apparently, choose not to know.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2015, 11:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You really have no credibility on th subject.

LMFAO....from the lawyer who admitted he doesn't even understand the subject.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2015, 11:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Then post something that explains the difference. 

I explained the difference at a high level...or do you not understand what "HINT HINT HINT" means?!?   But perhaps that is too simplistic for you.  Nevertheless, I don't feel compelled to explain the differences that are common knowledge to people who understand that all communists are socialist, but not all socialists are communists.

[JustWinBaby]

(08-01-2015, 11:59 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So the proliferation of lobbyist, which many people consider the most basic symbol of capitalism

LMAO... who thinks that?  My guess is people who don't understand business and economics (and people with agendas, like Krugman). Lobbyists are the "most basic symbol of capitalism?!? Holy batshit crazy, Robin.

If the government doesn't restrict enterprise and expropriate wealth, then there's no reason to lobby to protect your interests.  Make sense?  Granted, there is also motivation to lobby to create advantages, but that, again, stems from the government's ability to restrict and restrain enterprise. 

The more influence the "invisible hand" of gubmit has, the greater the incentive to sway it.  So, yes, the more significant govt is with respect to business, the more value created in lobbying.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 06:29 AM)JustWinBaby Wrote: LMAO... who thinks that?  My guess is people who don't understand business and economics (and people with agendas, like Krugman).  Lobbyists are the "most basic symbol of capitalism?!?  Holy batshit crazy, Robin.

If the government doesn't restrict enterprise and expropriate wealth, then there's no reason to lobby to protect your interests.  Make sense?  Granted, there is also motivation to lobby to create advantages, but that, again, stems from the government's ability to restrict and restrain enterprise. 

The more influence the "invisible hand" of gubmit has, the greater the incentive to sway it.  So, yes, the more significant govt is with respect to business, the more value created in lobbying.

So let me get this straight.  The fact that the government contracts out a lot of its business to private companies and these companies lobby to compete for the private contracts proves that we are a Socialist country?

That seems kind of backwards to me.


I also understand that lobbyist address regulations, but if "regulation" equals "socialism" then isn't every single country on earth socialist?

Can you name a single country that does not have any government regulations on business or industry?

[Rotobeast]

(08-02-2015, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: every single planet on earth

[StLucieBengal]

(08-02-2015, 11:37 AM)fredtoast Wrote: So let me get this straight.  The fact that the government contracts out a lot of its business to private companies and these companies lobby to compete for the private contracts proves that we are a Socialist country?

That seems kind of backwards to me.


I also understand that lobbyist address regulations, but if "regulation" equals "socialism" then isn't every single planet on earth socialist?

Can you name a single country that does not have any government regulations on business or industry?

So if the rest of the world is doing it then we should as well? That makes sense.

[fredtoast]

(08-02-2015, 01:32 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: So if the rest of the world is doing it then we should as well?   That makes sense.    

If you think about it, yes, it does make a lot of sense.

Or you could just look back at our own history to see how well things worked with no regulation.