We need Socialism. Socialism Is A Good Thing. Socialism Promotes The General Welfare.

It is no surprise that Naples, Florida would have a newspaper critical of anything that threatens crony capitalist wealth extraction, ie socialism, in the form of criticism of Cuba. Naples, Florida is a very rich community, kind of like the Mar-A-Lago of the Florida west coast. (Private jets come and go with stark regularity.) It only makes sense to placate the super-rich by championing capitalism.

The narrative is familiar because it is framed as a choice between one or the other, capitalism vs socialism.

That's a false narrative, because the USA has successfully mixed capitalism and socialism.

Government assistance programs for the poor, the struggling, the hungry, the wealth-extracted have been wildly successful in raising the lifestyles of millions of Americans, and are responsible for creating one of the highest average standards of living for all Americans comparatively across the entire world.

The take-away is clear.

Mixing capitalism and socialism is the answer for a bright future for ALL Americans.

We don't have to choose.

So the Naples newspaper story about the Cuban woman has errors or untruths in it? Or, do you just question the story because of the source? Many of my conservative friends question NYT or Washington Post stories because they are "liberal" newspapers.

I think you what you are calling socialism is really social welfare programs. Our major industries are not nationalized which is the (economic) definition of socialism.
 
The take-away is clear.

Mixing capitalism and socialism is the answer for a bright future for ALL Americans.

We don't have to choose.

Hit that one on the sweet spot, Poli.

For some on the right, though, even the word "socialism" terrifies.

There are problems "capitalism" seems unable to deal with successfully.

There are problems "socialism" seems unable to deal with successfully.

An amalgam may be key.

CHINA...may be proving that right now.

It went from a third world nation to the second largest economy in a few decades after introducing elements of capitalism...while retaining large elements of a socialistic being.
 
It's easy enough to say that we don't have to choose,

but until we realize that our two major social segments are never going to co-exist peacefully and productively,

we're thinking like so many unsophisticated children.

We have a social war.
There will be no compromise.
Somebody's got to win.
Somebody's got to disappear.
The factions do not belong living under the same government.

Wishing it were different cannot make it so.
 
It's easy enough to say that we don't have to choose,

but until we realize that our two major social segments are never going to co-exist peacefully and productively,

we're thinking like so many unsophisticated children.

We have a social war.
There will be no compromise.
Somebody's got to win.
Somebody's got to disappear.
The factions do not belong living under the same government.

Wishing it were different cannot make it so.

Interesting take, Nifty.

I hope you are wrong.

The change cannot come at a single swoop...and must occur as the result of initial mixing.

It will be gradual...or extremely bloody.

I vote for gradual.
 
Hello Red Crow,

Yes .....The USA needs Socialism. So we can be reduced to rubble like the other Socialist nations.

Lots of socialism in Europe. Not Rubble. Socialism in Japan and Australia, too. Not rubble. Socialism in China. Not rubble.

We've had socialism in the USA for a very long time and we are very rich; a land of plenty. Although the plenty is mostly in the hands of a few, and we do have starvation and squalor (because of capitalism and the Class War,) fantastic riches do exist in the USA. With socialism.

The fact is that the USA is nothing like Venezuela. We are far larger with vastly more resources. The economies of the two nations are not comparable. Ours is the world standard for money. The most secure investment anyone can make is to buy US T-Bills. AND WE ALREADY HAVE SOCIALISM.

I have not heard a single poster here advocate for abandoning capitalism completely; nor going to a totally socialist economy or government.

Could you please answer this question:

Why can't capitalism and socialism be blended to take advantage of the best each has to offer?

Dare ya to answer.
 
Hello Flash,

So the Naples newspaper story about the Cuban woman has errors or untruths in it?

No. I didn't say that.

Or, do you just question the story because of the source?

No, I don't at all doubt the story is true.

Many of my conservative friends question NYT or Washington Post stories because they are "liberal" newspapers.

Hey, if people won't believe the news then that's a breakdown of our democracy.

I think you what you are calling socialism is really social welfare programs. Our major industries are not nationalized which is the (economic) definition of socialism.

Bingo. And that's why I say we can mix that with capitalism just fine.

Look. This 'definition of socialism' thing has gone full circle.

Liberals: "We need a social safety net"
Conservatives: "That's socialism. Once that gets started it will destroy everything. After you run out of producers' money there will be no money for anybody."
Liberals: "Too bad. We've got the votes. Open wide. It's getting crammed down your throat."
Conservatives: "OK, but look out. We'll vote for the most extreme candidate we can elect. So there! Now look. We did what we wanted, and the economy is great."
Liberals: "Well, if the economy is so great then we can have more socialism. Now we see that capitalism and socialism can exist side by side and we can benefit from both!"
Conservatives: "No, they can't coexist. The social safety net isn't really socialism."

So .... Which is it?

I don't care what you want to call it; We can and need to have a growing social safety net as capitalism eliminates more and more income.

One day (mark my words) there will even be a Universal Basic Income. The government will issue an income to every citizen. And tax the super-rich heavily to pay for it. It will be so much easier than having all those government assistance programs and big bureaucracies. Artificial Intelligence is going to wipe out most jobs. But most people will not be able to afford their own robot to go do their work. So the profits will all go to the few super-rich who can afford the robots. That will eliminate most jobs. The robots will build themselves and repair themselves also. The big scare then will be if the robots decide they don't need humans any more. But as far as the economy goes, there will be a UBI or the economy will fail.
 
Hello Nifty,

It's easy enough to say that we don't have to choose,

but until we realize that our two major social segments are never going to co-exist peacefully and productively,

we're thinking like so many unsophisticated children.

We have a social war.
There will be no compromise.
Somebody's got to win.
Somebody's got to disappear.
The factions do not belong living under the same government.

Wishing it were different cannot make it so.

I don't think it has to be that way.
We could just unite as many as will be bold enough to simply identify as American, whether they lean conservative or liberal, agree to disagree, try to work out compromises, and move on.
Those who refuse to talk will be excluded from the deal making.
We need more unity. Hate gets us nowhere. Neither side is going away.
We need liberals and conservatives who are willing to band together to fight the oligarchy.
The greedy rich are our common enemy. Those who share enemies can coordinate effectively.
We must spread that message far and wide until we overcome polarization.
 
Hello again Evergreen58,

I agree with almost everything that you have written. I agree that social programs are needed for those who CANNOT help themselves. One of my concerns is the use of social programs for those who WILL NOT help themselves.

I like your statement "We need a balance of capitalism for the wants; and socialism for the needs. That way, we take advantage of the best that each has to offer".

Thanks.

I also agree that there are corrupt capitalists. This is a fact. It is human nature. There are also corrupt socialists.

Yes, absolutely. Agreed.

Your view that capitalism and socialism are both needed and currently coexist together is fine by me. If we stopped there then the discussion would be done. But there are many who feel that we should do away with capitalism and institute a socialist government. Not sure if you feel this way, but to me, this is where the discussion lies.

Agreed. We don't need to change the Constitution. I like capitalism just fine. We simply need to get more people paying attention. We need to have a stronger opposition to corrupt capitalism. If enough people simply wrote to their representatives we could give them the power to tell the corporatists to stuff it.
 
Hello Nifty,



I don't think it has to be that way.
We could just unite as many as will be bold enough to simply identify as American, whether they lean conservative or liberal, agree to disagree, try to work out compromises, and move on.
Those who refuse to talk will be excluded from the deal making.
We need more unity. Hate gets us nowhere. Neither side is going away.
We need liberals and conservatives who are willing to band together to fight the oligarchy.
The greedy rich are our common enemy. Those who share enemies can coordinate effectively.
We must spread that message far and wide until we overcome polarization.

The wealthy right wingers are looking out for their best interests.
The poor ones are fucking stupid and enjoy shooting their own toes off, just to keep "niggers" and "spicks" in their place (using their words).
You're living a pipedream, PoliTalker, even though your intentions are good.
 
we have to get back to agreeing on what is a fact


which means killing the propaganda founts like Fox "news"
 
we have to get back to agreeing on what is a fact


which means killing the propaganda founts like Fox "news"


Ummm...

...careful there.

Bad thinking.

I am no more interested in anyone "killing" FOX "news" than I am in anyone killing CNN, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, The NY Times or The Washington Post.
 
then you are foolish

Fox is not news

its propaganda


they spew lies and were reporting the fake Russian news as real stories during the election

we can no longer allow liars to call themselves news


we didn't used to
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.
 
Hello Nifty,

The wealthy right wingers are looking out for their best interests.
The poor ones are fucking stupid and enjoy shooting their own toes off, just to keep "niggers" and "spicks" in their place (using their words).
You're living a pipedream, PoliTalker, even though your intentions are good.

I am not the first person, nor shall I be the last, to face daunting challenges.

Can I be the one to make a difference? Are there more who feel like me? I can't do it alone. Should I try at all?

You never know what you can do until you try.

One thing is for sure.

You won't find out if you don't try.

If I am all alone, maybe after time, another will join me.

And then another.

And so on until this dark blot of an era on our history is complete; and we begin to learn how to work together and make democracy work. I guess democracy is sort of a do-it-yourself project, eh?

I have the luxury of lots of time.

And I can learn things.

Those two qualities do distinguish me, I realize.

So be it.
 
Reagan supported the effort and later vetoed the Democratic-controlled Congress's effort to make the doctrine law
 
Hello Nifty,



I am not the first person, nor shall I be the last, to face daunting challenges.

Can I be the one to make a difference? Are there more who feel like me? I can't do it alone. Should I try at all?

You never know what you can do until you try.

One thing is for sure.

You won't find out if you don't try.

If I am all alone, maybe after time, another will join me.

And then another.

And so on until this dark blot of an era on our history is complete; and we begin to learn how to work together and make democracy work. I guess democracy is sort of a do-it-yourself project, eh?

I have the luxury of lots of time.

And I can learn things.

Those two qualities do distinguish me, I realize.

So be it.

if we cant agree on what is a fact we cant work together as a nation


First we have to silence the liars
 
Hello Frank,

Ummm...

...careful there.

Bad thinking.

I am no more interested in anyone "killing" FOX "news" than I am in anyone killing CNN, MSNBC, PBS News Hour, The NY Times or The Washington Post.

Let there be PLENTY of information. Don't limit the free press.

Let there be PLENTY of well informed and very smart Americans who can recognize propaganda for what it is.
 
Hello evince,

if we cant agree on what is a fact we cant work together as a nation


First we have to silence the liars

I disagree. Let the lies flow. Let the people be wise enough to see right through them.

I support having a free press.

As soon as you take that right away, take away free press, you give Trump the power to shut down CNN, NPR, etc.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FCC_fairness_doctrine


The fairness doctrine of the United States Federal Communications Commission (FCC), introduced in 1949, was a policy that required the holders of broadcast licenses both to present controversial issues of public importance and to do so in a manner that was—in the FCC's view—honest, equitable, and balanced. The FCC eliminated the policy in 1987 and removed the rule that implemented the policy from the Federal Register in August 2011.[1]
The fairness doctrine had two basic elements: It required broadcasters to devote some of their airtime to discussing controversial matters of public interest, and to air contrasting views regarding those matters. Stations were given wide latitude as to how to provide contrasting views: It could be done through news segments, public affairs shows, or editorials. The doctrine did not require equal time for opposing views but required that contrasting viewpoints be presented. The demise of this FCC rule has been considered by some to be a contributing factor for the rising level of party polarization in the United States.[2][3]
The main agenda for the doctrine was to ensure that viewers were exposed to a diversity of viewpoints. In 1969 the United States Supreme Court upheld the FCC's general right to enforce the fairness doctrine where channels were limited. But the courts did not rule that the FCC was obliged to do so.[4] The courts reasoned that the scarcity of the broadcast spectrum, which limited the opportunity for access to the airwaves, created a need for the doctrine.

policing the news and revoking the licenses of those who kept lying after being warned


the Democratic party backed it


the Republicans party killed it


then they started fox "news"
 
Hello evince,



I disagree. Let the lies flow. Let the people be wise enough to see right through them.

I support having a free press.

As soon as you take that right away, take away free press, you give Trump the power to shut down CNN, NPR, etc.

free to LIE?

we used to do it


then the republicans killed it so Ailes and Nixons plan of a right wing news station became fact
 
Back
Top