Is socialism a stepping stone to communism

[Flash]

From what I have seen democrats seem to support a larger government with more control over the people , while republicans want a smaller government with less control.

I used to vote Republican when that was true, but it has not been true for many years. Government spending, deficit, and debt took a large jump under Trump (before the pandemic, worse after). Government increased in size and power and presidential power continued to increase with executive orders and "emergency" actions. Trump did reduce regulations which I support but some those actions allowed rip-offs of tax money such as private for-profit colleges getting federal money with no accountability.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

LBJ was personally unpolished and took on a disastrous war in Viet Nam.

I don't know what his personal feelings on race were because his personal feelings didn't matter.

He signed significant civil rights legislation, much of which the right wing SCOTUS has dismantled.

He is infamous for saying to his colleagues at the time he signed that legislation, "I'll have them ni**ers eatin' out of my hand for the next twenty years!"

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Because those farms are privately owned. Under socialism they would be run by the government.

You are correct that agriculture has many government regulations--that is liberalism, not socialism.

I did not state that ag has many regulations. I stated that it has government price supports. According to the current crop of Reichtards, any government money given to any individual or "liberal" corporation (except farms!) is "socialism." "Government Motors" ring a bell? Should we be propping up the price of food with ag support payments?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Comrade Im sorry young lady but I am not a communist. Are you ? implying that I am your comrade imply s you are a communist . Now I doubt you are . But clearly you are upset over the possibility of there being a link between socialism and communisum. Perhaps because youn are a socialist at heart but are unable to admit the truth.

No, hon, I am not upset about a supposed link between socialism (which is practiced by most of the successful, prosperous countries on this planet) with communism -- which isn't practiced by any country you'd want to even fly over. Why am I not upset? Because there IS no link. You were taught that by those who wish to keep their wealth to themselves... because (hahahaha) someday YOU might be a 1%er and wouldn't it be so UNFAIR if you had to pay more taxes so that we could afford to fix your roads, fund your fire and police dept., educate the kids of your housekeeper so they didn't turn out to be drug dealers, and pick up your trash and keep the unsightly poor ppl away from you?

Not that you asked for advice because your glass is already full (*snort*), but maybe you might try talking to actual people who live in other nations than ours, about their standard of life. Tip: It's a lot better than yours.

 

[Bulletbob]

No, hon, I am not upset about a supposed link between socialism (which is practiced by most of the successful, prosperous countries on this planet) with communism -- which isn't practiced by any country you'd want to even fly over. Why am I not upset? Because there IS no link. You were taught that by those who wish to keep their wealth to themselves... because (hahahaha) someday YOU might be a 1%er and wouldn't it be so UNFAIR if you had to pay more taxes so that we could afford to fix your roads, fund your fire and police dept., educate the kids of your housekeeper so they didn't turn out to be drug dealers, and pick up your trash and keep the unsightly poor ppl away from you?

Not that you asked for advice because your glass is already full (*snort*), but maybe you might try talking to actual people who live in other nations than ours, about their standard of life. Tip: It's a lot better than yours.

not to mention Las and Vietnam , or Ireland where your taxed on even your tv not to mention greece and other failed states . just wonderful places Im sure you would love them all .
You go live in them and work there and tell me how much you love them

 

[Flash]

I did not state that ag has many regulations. I stated that it has government price supports. According to the current crop of Reichtards, any government money given to any individual or "liberal" corporation (except farms!) is "socialism." "Government Motors" ring a bell? Should we be propping up the price of food with ag support payments?

Farmers have a lot of regulations if they are going to get those payments for price supports, crop insurance, etc.

I would lean toward cutting out all those agricultural programs; however, I can also understand that if farmers have a few bad years it might put too many out of business. Today many of those crops are rotting in the field due to a lack of workers.

My area grows a lot of rice (much less than years ago). The federal program used to give the funds to the farmers and many landowners would lease their land to them. Then, government began to give the money to the landowners and they would keep the money and not lease the land out.

 

[Geeko Sportivo]

Get your Turkey while it is Really Really Hot! AND ALL DONE!

 

[Bulletbob]

Get your Turkey while it is Really Really Hot! AND ALL DONE!

O yes very adult of you

 

[no worries]

Truth. Ever notice how (R)s never refer to farm price supports as socialism?

Per Oxford, socialism is defined as "a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole." The "community," in our system, would be the government, elected and composed of The People.

For decades, we have had the government giving farmers money to keep them going. The government calculates what crops we need more of and less of, and instructs the farmers to plant those. In exchange, the farmers receive annual payments. If that doesn't fit the definition, what does? Why aren't the RWers crying about that?

RW's, never said a thing about Trump giving farmers $28 billion either, more than twice the amount ($12 billion) the auto bailout was.
A crisis Trump started with his tariffs, he still claims China is paying for.

 

[no worries]

No as a republican I dont want government handed over to corporations, and I dont know any who do want that .
From what I have seen democrats seem to support a larger government with more control over the people , while republicans want a smaller government with less control.
No we are ant socialist very much so and democrats are far more socialist inclined as you can clearly see by thr likes of the squad and bernie .
but let us use some links .

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jul/8/democrats-want-to-impose-socialism-and-worse-on-am/
"No as a republican I dont want government handed over to corporations, and I dont know any who do want that".
Really?
For decades, RW's wanted to privatize the post office, claiming it's inefficient and losing $$$, well they made sure of that, passing the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act (PAEA) signed into law by George Bush in 2006.

It reorganized the Postal Rate Commission, compelled the USPS to pay in advance for the health and retirement benefits of all of its employees for at least 50 years, and stipulated that the price of postage could not increase faster than the rate of inflation. It also mandated the USPS to deliver six days of the week.
Between 2007 and 2016, the USPS lost $62.4 billion; the inspector general of the USPS estimated that $54.8 billion of that was due to prefunding retiree benefits.

Then there was Halliburton in a no bid contract to provide services the troops used to, Halliburton would burn trucks in Iraq, instead of replacing a flat tire, then charge the government for a brand new truck.
Halliburton would charge $45 for a case of soda and $99 for doing 15 lbs. of laundry.

Then there is a host of companies ICE and immigration hired to detain Mexicans, which the government estimated it cost about $200 a day per person to detain, some of these companies are charging $600 to $700 a day, per person.
So apparently, a lot of RW'S do and for quite some time.

 

[no worries]

No as a republican I dont want government handed over to corporations, and I dont know any who do want that .
From what I have seen democrats seem to support a larger government with more control over the people , while republicans want a smaller government with less control.
No we are ant socialist very much so and democrats are far more socialist inclined as you can clearly see by thr likes of the squad and bernie .
but let us use some links .

"From what I have seen democrats seem to support a larger government with more control over the people , while republicans want a smaller government with less control".
No, that's just a campaign slogan.
Republicans want to privatize any government agency they can, which cost more, not less.
Want to be under corporate control?
RW's are whining about a mask.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Farmers have a lot of regulations if they are going to get those payments for price supports, crop insurance, etc.

I would lean toward cutting out all those agricultural programs; however, I can also understand that if farmers have a few bad years it might put too many out of business. Today many of those crops are rotting in the field due to a lack of workers.

My area grows a lot of rice (much less than years ago). The federal program used to give the funds to the farmers and many landowners would lease their land to them. Then, government began to give the money to the landowners and they would keep the money and not lease the land out.

We lived in a rural farming area for over a decade. Land was sold and valued by how much of it could be kept in the CRP which gave the landowner a yearly income from unused land. A lot of ppl mistook the purpose of the program as "paying farmers not to grow" in order to keep prices up. Instead, it's to protect environmentally-fragile areas, an idea I am in favor of.

Huge farm corporations make a lot of money from government payments. I'm not sure why RWers find this acceptable, but clutch their pearls over a miniscule (compared to the budget as a whole) amount of taxpayer money that goes to feed families in the form of SNAP. Why is the former okay but the latter is "socialism"?

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

RW's, never said a thing about Trump giving farmers $28 billion either, more than twice the amount ($12 billion) the auto bailout was.
A crisis Trump started with his tariffs, he still claims China is paying for.

Amen. I think a lot of those 70M misguided souls who voted for #LOSER45 did so on the mistaken belief that he did something good for the economy. Yep, the robust economy that he inherited from President Obama did very well till shortly before the pandemic. Economists said we were in a recession by February, long before any shutdowns began. One reason why is the tariffs. They were extremely damaging to US, not to China. Kind of like saying to a bully "Stop bullying me or else!" and then you punch yourself in the face.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

Amen. I think a lot of those 70M misguided souls who voted for #LOSER45 did so on the mistaken belief that he did something good for the economy. Yep, the robust economy that he inherited from President Obama did very well till shortly before the pandemic. Economists said we were in a recession by February, long before any shutdowns began. One reason why is the tariffs. They were extremely damaging to US, not to China. Kind of like saying to a bully "Stop bullying me or else!" and then you punch yourself in the face.

Certainly some did. Like Democrats supporting Hillary, some people are just sheep and follow what their friends and family do. However, I think most people are not sheep and sincerely believe one party is better than another even though they don't agree 100% with their selection.

You and I have discussed this several times. You know I dislike a lot of things both parties do and I like some things each party does. In short, it's a Black and White binary decision process in a Technicolor world.

FWIW, IMO the best thing Trump ever was beat Hillary R. Clinton. After that, I'd just as soon he resigned and let Pence be President for the last 3.5 years. I'm certain over 200K Americans would agree that they'd have been better off with Pence versus Trump.

Trump certainly did shake things up. In some ways that was very good for the long term, but I'm not sure if the downside of his bullshit was worth the gains made.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Trump certainly did shake things up. In some ways that was very good for the long term, but I'm not sure if the downside of his bullshit was worth the gains made.

So what, specifically, did #LOSER45 shake up that is good?

 

[Dutch Uncle]

So what, specifically, did #LOSER45 shake up that is good?

Trade relations, NATO. They needed to be shook up. The world is changing. Some think it's changing for the better, some for the worse. I believe for the better. Change is hard for some people and it's harder for people who are used to being in charge and calling all of shots.

That said, there's a difference between "shaking things up" and "smashing it on the floor then throwing it off of Trump Tower".

A second "good thing" is that Trump has shattered many myths such as "we need a businessman as President" and "America should return to isolationism" (which is just the PC version of being anti-"globalism").

How can someone know love unless they know hate? How can they know pain unless they know pleasure and vice-versa. In Trump's case it's "How can we know how fucked up a President can be and the nation still survives?"

 

[CharacterAssassin]

I have indeed backed it up, but you have called me a pussy and my mother a Whore and said I was gay, when are you going to back those claims up goober ?
I will be waiting for you to prove your claims goober.
Myself I think the only thing you can prove is your ignorance , which you have done a bang up job so far of proving .

No, you haven't. Please point out where you did, silly whore.

Sorry your parents hate you for being gay.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

He is infamous for saying to his colleagues at the time he signed that legislation, "I'll have them ni**ers eatin' out of my hand for the next twenty years!"

LBJ was a man of his times. Most people overlook the facts that Abraham Lincoln was a racist in that he felt Africans were inferior to white men and that he fought the Civil War to forcibly reunify the nation, not to abolish slavery. All of the Founders were racists even if they were against slavery. They, too, were people of their times since racism is cultural.

 

[ThatOwlWoman]

Trade relations, NATO. They needed to be shook up. The world is changing. Some think it's changing for the better, some for the worse. I believe for the better. Change is hard for some people and it's harder for people who are used to being in charge and calling all of shots.

That said, there's a difference between "shaking things up" and "smashing it on the floor then throwing it off of Trump Tower".

A second "good thing" is that Trump has shattered many myths such as "we need a businessman as President" and "America should return to isolationism" (which is just the PG version of being anti-"globalism").

How can someone know love unless they know hate? How can they know pain unless they know pleasure and vice-versa. In Trump's case it's "How can we know how fucked up a President can be and the nation still survives?"

I definitely agree with that last about "businessman as President."

It still remains to be seen whether or not the nation will survive. There are still 70M ppl who voted for the moron, most because of the economy, but a far-too-large number because Trump represents who they are. And that's not pretty -- racists, low-lifes, white supremacists, bigots, haters, wannabe killers but too chickenshit to join the military, and worst of all -- those who want America to become an authoritarian theocracy. Der Fuehrer let them out of the caves and gave them a voice.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

I definitely agree with that last about "businessman as President."

It still remains to be seen whether or not the nation will survive. There are still 70M ppl who voted for the moron, most because of the economy, but a far-too-large number because Trump represents who they are. And that's not pretty -- racists, low-lifes, white supremacists, bigots, haters, wannabe killers but too chickenshit to join the military, and worst of all -- those who want America to become an authoritarian theocracy. Der Fuehrer let them out of the caves and gave them a voice.

The United States will survive. It's literally too big to fail. Just like the US isn't the same as it was in 1789, 1861 and 1941, it won't be the same in 2040. We evolve because in a world competing for limited resources, it's adapt or die.

The Internet is a pure democracy, the very thing the "eliminate the Electoral College" mob seeks. As you pointed out, it's not pretty because it gives voice to the very seedy underbelly of the worst of humankind. Be careful what you ask for.