Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
KJP

Socialism / Social Democracy

Recommended Posts

^Virtually every publication that has ever ranked the U.S. Presidents has FDR in the top 3.  Find me a credible list that doesn't have him in the top 5.

 

Trying to re-write history of the man makes you look silly.  Was he perfect no?  But to claim he wasn't one of the greatest presidents in the country's history or not a great leader is disingenuous.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the most partisan of economists believe federal spending prolonged the depression.  Isn't that exactly how "the war fixed it," through federal spending?  Or are you suggesting the war had a more spiritual effect?  I don't think any economists believe that. 

 

Lincoln has his warts too, but even Lincoln wanted to give away acreage to those who needed and deserved it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 1/2 terms of FDR didn't seem to hurt anyone. 

 

Oh, the guy that threw my Japanese-American family members in a concentration camp?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

This was the president who promoted massive federal spending programs that prolonged the depression and promoted rationing.

 

 

All of what you just said is crap to one degree or another but this one takes the cake.

 

Historians do NOT agree that his programs prolonged the depression. In fact, it's the exact opposite. The vast majority of actual Historians, not ones associated with conservative think tanks, agree that the depression was shortened by FDR's policies and that, if anything, New Deal policies didn't go far enough and could have ended it sooner. The fact that war spending got us over the edge is a pretty big indicator that MORE spending was the answer, not less.

 

That is a consensus among actual Historians, but Fox News has been pushing the propaganda for years that the opposite is true. And now we have people on internet message boards restating that propaganda as fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 1/2 terms of FDR didn't seem to hurt anyone. 

 

Oh, the guy that threw my Japanese-American family members in a concentration camp?

 

You're right, I should have limited my statement to economics because that's what I meant.  We still say nice things about Washington and Jefferson even though the way they lived is unthinkable today.  There's a certain amount of tension involved in praising any leader, or at least there should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

3 1/2 terms of FDR didn't seem to hurt anyone. 

 

Oh, the guy that threw my Japanese-American family members in a concentration camp?

 

You're right, I should have limited my statement to economics because that's what I meant.  We still say nice things about Washington and Jefferson even though the way they lived is unthinkable today.  There's a certain amount of tension involved in praising any leader, or at least there should be.

 

I hear ya. Plus I think it humanizes these historical figures to know their flaws, giving us a greater depth of understanding.

 

Anyhow, I have always had a soft spot for the Civilian Conservation Corps. Of course textbook libertarians and conservatives would oppose....until they got a paycheck. You could sell this program to the blue collar right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only the most partisan of economists believe federal spending prolonged the depression.  Isn't that exactly how "the war fixed it," through federal spending?  Or are you suggesting the war had a more spiritual effect?  I don't think any economists believe that. 

 

Lincoln has his warts too, but even Lincoln wanted to give away acreage to those who needed and deserved it. 

 

That's not actually true.

 

As an FDR buff, I'd say it's near consensus that his economic policies did very little to combat the Depression and, arguably, made it worse. What it did do, though, was  provide jobs to people, most of which subsidized by the government. An important reminder that government spending isn't always enough.

 

However, (ASIDE FROM THE INTERNMENT CAMPS), FDR was an exceptional leader in extraordinary times. He knew how to play to the American people in ways that would be healthy for the national dialogue. By most accounts, he hid his ailments from them not because he was vain, but because  he believed the American people deserved a leader who projected strength.

 

I don't necessarily agree with the New Deal, but it was what FDR believed was best; and it certainly helped sway the national mood.

 

He also had flaws in not responding to Eleanor's push for greater civil rights for minorities, but that was a political calculation not unlike the ones Lincoln made.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't expecting this. Not sure I like it either. Would prefer to see a healthy mix of both....

 

NEW POLL: Dems view socialism more positively than capitalism http://hill.cm/NH0uOJT

 

scary thought.

 

Good thing is we are highly unlikely to ever have true capitalism or true socialism.  We'll probably have a mix of both.

 

It's a bit like watching a bunch of carpenters arguing about true hammerism, or saw fundamentalism.  A more rational debate is the relative merits of markets vs government programs for distribution of various goods under various circumstances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fox News host @trish_regan tried coming after Denmark's social safety net.

 

This Danish politician, Dan Joergensen, was having 0% of it.

 

Watch him dismantle Trish's argument point by point.

 


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“Socialism” vs. “capitalism” is a false dichotomy

We need go-go capitalism to afford a generous welfare state, and people won’t support go-go capitalism without a safety net. “Socialists” and Republicans forget different parts of this lesson.

https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2018/8/16/17698602/socialism-capitalism-false-dichotomy-kevin-williamson-column-republican-ocasio-cortez


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An (ongoing) lesson in what can go wrong when populist social welfare policies run amok:

 

Venezuela lops five zeros off its currency in bid to tackle hyperinflation

 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/venezuela-hyperinflation-economy-nicolas-maduro-sovereign-bolivar-money-socialism-a8499241.html

 

Venezuela is launching a new currency that slashes five zeros off the country’s fast-depreciating bills, in a bid to tackle the country’s accelerating hyperinflation.

 

President Nicolas Maduro has also announced a 3,000 per cent hike in the minimum wage and a rise in the price of fuel to international levels, in changes that will be implemented from Monday.

 

But critics say the measures will only make conditions worse in Venezuela, which has already seen hyperinflation at more than 40,000 per cent and a rapidly contracting economy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An (ongoing) lesson in what can go wrong when populist social welfare policies run amok:

 

Venezuela lops five zeros off its currency in bid to tackle hyperinflation

 

 

The article doesn't support that conclusion.  Rather, the article blames "a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement." 

 

Corruption and mismanagement are not limited to Cuyahoga County socialist countries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Venezuala's problems have more to do with being a petro-state run by an authoritarian populist dictatorship than they do with having a strong social safety net.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, "social safety net" is an American definition. We view government support as a tool of last resort, whereas social democracies view them as an essential part of the community fabric. But we are inconsistent in our definitions. Do we view public infrastructure as a social safety net in the USA? Of course not. We view it as a part of our national foundation. A major difference with a social democracy is that their national foundations are broader and usually more stable than ours.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many uncivilized American heads exploded upon reading this?

 

At more than 40 weeks pregnant, New Zealand's minister for women rode her bicycle to a hospital to give birth (for free). “It also put me in the best possible mood!”

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/19/world/asia/new-zealand-pregnant-minister-bicycle.html?smid=tw-nytimes&smtyp=cur


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, Venezuala's problems have more to do with being a petro-state run by an authoritarian populist dictatorship than they do with having a strong social safety net.

 

That's why every time someone says Venezuela I say Somalia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An (ongoing) lesson in what can go wrong when populist social welfare policies run amok:

 

Venezuela lops five zeros off its currency in bid to tackle hyperinflation

 

 

The article doesn't support that conclusion.  Rather, the article blames "a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement." 

 

 

You chopped that quote down in convenient spots. Here's the full sentence:

 

"Venezuela was once among Latin America‘s most prosperous nations, holding the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement under two decades of socialist rule have left the economy in a historic economic and political crisis. "

 

Put succinctly, two decades of socialism and the associated rampant, unsustainable welfare policies left one of the western hemisphere's most prosperous nations completely unprepared for a gradual shift in oil prices.

 

And, as you said - corruption and mismanagement aren't limited to socialist countries. Similar levels of corruption exist in many other South American nations but they aren't all on the brink of collapse - only the most socialist of the bunch is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Other way around... corruption and mismanagement aren't limited to hyper-capitalist countries like ours where business drives the political agenda. Google "Least corrupt countries" and see who (and what) are in the top 10 in most if not all of the results.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.weeklystandard.com/chris-deaton/what-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-talking-about

 

THIS^

 

This quote cuts to the core of Progressive's oft uneducated views on socialism:

 

"Disregarding the Planned Parenthood non sequitur, this seems to imply two things: One, that government activity in any part of society could be considered socialism, and two, that private activity could be considered socialist if it produces a result of which socialists approve."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An (ongoing) lesson in what can go wrong when populist social welfare policies run amok:

 

Venezuela lops five zeros off its currency in bid to tackle hyperinflation

 

 

The article doesn't support that conclusion.  Rather, the article blames "a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement." 

 

 

You chopped that quote down in convenient spots. Here's the full sentence:

 

"Venezuela was once among Latin America‘s most prosperous nations, holding the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement under two decades of socialist rule have left the economy in a historic economic and political crisis. "

 

Put succinctly, two decades of socialism and the associated rampant, unsustainable welfare policies left one of the western hemisphere's most prosperous nations completely unprepared for a gradual shift in oil prices.

 

And, as you said - corruption and mismanagement aren't limited to socialist countries. Similar levels of corruption exist in many other South American nations but they aren't all on the brink of collapse - only the most socialist of the bunch is.

 

 

 

Colombia's doing great, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.weeklystandard.com/chris-deaton/what-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-talking-about

 

THIS^

 

This quote cuts to the core of Progressive's oft uneducated views on socialism:

 

"Disregarding the Planned Parenthood non sequitur, this seems to imply two things: One, that government activity in any part of society could be considered socialism, and two, that private activity could be considered socialist if it produces a result of which socialists approve."

 

Disclaimer: I didn't read the article.

 

Americans seem to struggle a lot with the vocabulary to talk about these things. I think this has a few causes. The thing most to blame is the two-party system, which makes people think in black-and-white. That also leads people to talk in extreme terms. And it leads to the partisan instinct of painting the "other side" with extreme labels. Then both sides just start thinking in those terms, even about themselves. "I like what they are calling socialist / socialized medicine, therefore I must be a socialist." In the particular case of socialism, we now have a generation of voters who instead of associating the word with communism, gulags, mutually assured destruction, etc., they associate the word with protection for preexisting conditions and debt-free post-college opportunity. So they identify with it.

 

It could turn out to have been a poor strategy for Republicans to have overloaded the term, as it is likely to turn more people on to real socialism. Which hasn't been a significant political force in this country for almost a century. Then again it could be a good thing. If both the Republican and Democratic parties fracture, the will to abolish the mechanisms which ensure only two viable parties may hit a critical mass. We could all then accept more grey into our worldviews instead of this manufactured battle of "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" (which, by the way, are similar examples of poorly understood terms, as used by "both sides").

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.weeklystandard.com/chris-deaton/what-is-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-talking-about

 

THIS^

 

This quote cuts to the core of Progressive's oft uneducated views on socialism:

 

"Disregarding the Planned Parenthood non sequitur, this seems to imply two things: One, that government activity in any part of society could be considered socialism, and two, that private activity could be considered socialist if it produces a result of which socialists approve."

 

Disclaimer: I didn't read the article.

 

Americans seem to struggle a lot with the vocabulary to talk about these things. I think this has a few causes. The thing most to blame is the two-party system, which makes people think in black-and-white. That also leads people to talk in extreme terms. And it leads to the partisan instinct of painting the "other side" with extreme labels. Then both sides just start thinking in those terms, even about themselves. "I like what they are calling socialist / socialized medicine, therefore I must be a socialist." In the particular case of socialism, we now have a generation of voters who instead of associating the word with communism, gulags, mutually assured destruction, etc., they associate the word with protection for preexisting conditions and debt-free post-college opportunity. So they identify with it.

 

It could turn out to have been a poor strategy for Republicans to have overloaded the term, as it is likely to turn more people on to real socialism. Which hasn't been a significant political force in this country for almost a century. Then again it could be a good thing. If both the Republican and Democratic parties fracture, the will to abolish the mechanisms which ensure only two viable parties may hit a critical mass. We could all then accept more grey into our worldviews instead of this manufactured battle of "Liberal" vs. "Conservative" (which, by the way, are similar examples of poorly understood terms, as used by "both sides").

 

You, in part, encapsulated a portion of the article without knowing it lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

"Venezuela was once among Latin America‘s most prosperous nations, holding the world’s largest proven oil reserves, but a recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement under two decades of socialist rule have left the economy in a historic economic and political crisis. "

 

Put succinctly, two decades of socialism and the associated rampant, unsustainable welfare policies left one of the western hemisphere's most prosperous nations completely unprepared for a gradual shift in oil prices.

 

I still disagree with your conclusion.  The article says that the "recent fall in oil prices accompanied by corruption and mismanagement" is what led to the crisis. The article does NOT say that "rampant, unsustainable welfare policies" led to Venezuela's downfall.  You're reading more into the fact that the fall in oil prices and corruption and mismanagement happened during "two decades of socialist rule" than what the article actually says.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout history, socialist leaders often dressed in a manner to show proletarian unity (think Mao Suits). Hillary botched this by wearing garments similar to Mao Suits, but ones that came with $12,000 price tags. Now, this phony is making the same mistake. Her outfit appears to have cost more than most of the working class take home in pay every month:

 

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit For Photo-op With Construction Workers

 

https://www.infowars.com/socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wears-3500-outfit-for-photo-op-with-construction-workers/

 

Ocasio-Cortez wore a $1990 Gabriela Hearst blazer, $890 Gabriela Hearst pants and $625 Monolo Blahnik shoes.

 

The outlay on such an expensive outfit left some wondering if such wealth could have been redistributed better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout history, socialist leaders often dressed in a manner to show proletarian unity (think Mao Suits). Hillary botched this by wearing garments similar to Mao Suits, but ones that came with $12,000 price tags. Now, this phony is making the same mistake. Her outfit appears to have cost more than most of the working class take home in pay every month:

 

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit For Photo-op With Construction Workers

 

https://www.infowars.com/socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wears-3500-outfit-for-photo-op-with-construction-workers/

 

Ocasio-Cortez wore a $1990 Gabriela Hearst blazer, $890 Gabriela Hearst pants and $625 Monolo Blahnik shoes.

 

The outlay on such an expensive outfit left some wondering if such wealth could have been redistributed better.

 

When has she ever said that people can't buy clothing with their money. In fact, in social democracies aka places with government health care, consumers have more money to spend on clothing. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting from Infowars automatically makes me not read the post.

 

It's actually factually accurate here though.

 

It's just not a good look to run on a message of economic equality and then wear opulent clothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting from Infowars automatically makes me not read the post.

 

It's actually factually accurate here though.

 

It's just not a good look to run on a message of economic equality and then wear opulent clothing.

 

I agree, but I don't think opulence looks any better on Paul Manafort.  He's more honest about claiming he deserves it.  OK.  Where does that get us?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posting from Infowars automatically makes me not read the post.

 

It's actually factually accurate here though.

 

It's just not a good look to run on a message of economic equality and then wear opulent clothing.

 

I agree, but I don't think opulence looks any better on Paul Manafort.  He's more honest about claiming he deserves it.  OK.  Where does that get us?

 

Yeah literally no idea what Paul Manafort has to do with a social democrat wearing high priced clothes. The CEO of GE does as well, I'm sure, but that's not exactly pertinent to any of this...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she actually own those clothes or were they provided to her for a photo shoot?

 

I'd argue the latter would be worse, actually. Because then its almost an idolatrous look at wealth.

 

Look, at the end of the day, it's not a huge deal - I'd expect Bernie to be in Brooks Brothers at most too. If he wears an Armani suit, it doesn't make him a bad guy or terrible at his job, its just hypocritical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's being criticized for the tension between her clothes and her stated beliefs.  Paul Manafort wears ostrich but opulence comports with his political views.  Does opulence look better on someone who disavows equality?  Stated succinctly-- two people dress up.  One is liberal.  Is it more wrong for them?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she actually own those clothes or were they provided to her for a photo shoot?

 

I'd argue the latter would be worse, actually. Because then its almost an idolatrous look at wealth.

 

Look, at the end of the day, it's not a huge deal - I'd expect Bernie to be in Brooks Brothers at most too. If he wears an Armani suit, it doesn't make him a bad guy or terrible at his job, its just hypocritical.

 

But neither of these people are arguing that it is not OK to be wealthy.  They are arguing that people should be paid living wages and be provided with health care.  Neither of these goals prevents people from being wealthy.  I think people are assuming that they are preaching equal pay for all people, which they are not. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She's being criticized for the tension between her clothes and her stated beliefs.  Paul Manafort wears ostrich but opulence comports with his political views.  Does opulence look better on someone who disavows equality?  Stated succinctly-- two people dress up.  One is liberal.  Is it more wrong for them?

 

Comparing her to someone with the moral fiber of Paul Manafort..... Mussolini dressed up too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she actually own those clothes or were they provided to her for a photo shoot?

 

I'd argue the latter would be worse, actually. Because then its almost an idolatrous look at wealth.

 

Look, at the end of the day, it's not a huge deal - I'd expect Bernie to be in Brooks Brothers at most too. If he wears an Armani suit, it doesn't make him a bad guy or terrible at his job, its just hypocritical.

 

But neither of these people are arguing that it is not OK to be wealthy.  They are arguing that people should be paid living wages and be provided with health care.  Neither of these goals prevents people from being wealthy.  I think people are assuming that they are preaching equal pay for all people, which they are not. 

 

And how exactly is she wealthy, right now... as a former bartender turned candidate...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Does she actually own those clothes or were they provided to her for a photo shoot?

 

I'd argue the latter would be worse, actually. Because then its almost an idolatrous look at wealth.

 

Look, at the end of the day, it's not a huge deal - I'd expect Bernie to be in Brooks Brothers at most too. If he wears an Armani suit, it doesn't make him a bad guy or terrible at his job, its just hypocritical.

 

But neither of these people are arguing that it is not OK to be wealthy.  They are arguing that people should be paid living wages and be provided with health care.  Neither of these goals prevents people from being wealthy.  I think people are assuming that they are preaching equal pay for all people, which they are not. 

 

And how exactly is she wealthy, right now... as a former bartender turned candidate...

 

She isn't wealthy at all.  This is a fake issue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol. Alright.

 

It's a fair critique. Albeit an extremely minor one. And the left's ability to obfuscate that just continues to baffle me. "Not a good look given the circumstances, but not a big deal." That's the perfect response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This idea that you have to live your entire life the exact same way as the people you seek to help is absurd.  As freefour noted, she's not saying it's not OK to be wealthy or to be able to buy more expensive clothing.

 

I'll criticize her once all Republicans start living out their family values and since accepting government money is evil, I expect them to decline their Social Security payments and Medicare as well.


Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[quote author=DarkandStormy link=topic=32089.msg937493#msg937493 date

 

I'll criticize her once all Republicans start living out their family values and since accepting government money is evil, I expect them to decline their Social Security payments and Medicare as well.

 

Lol again. “They’re being hypocritical so I can be too” is BS. Be better than them or don’t

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Throughout history, socialist leaders often dressed in a manner to show proletarian unity (think Mao Suits). Hillary botched this by wearing garments similar to Mao Suits, but ones that came with $12,000 price tags. Now, this phony is making the same mistake. Her outfit appears to have cost more than most of the working class take home in pay every month:

 

Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit For Photo-op With Construction Workers

 

https://www.infowars.com/socialist-alexandria-ocasio-cortez-wears-3500-outfit-for-photo-op-with-construction-workers/

 

Ocasio-Cortez wore a $1990 Gabriela Hearst blazer, $890 Gabriela Hearst pants and $625 Monolo Blahnik shoes.

 

The outlay on such an expensive outfit left some wondering if such wealth could have been redistributed better.

 

When has she ever said that people can't buy clothing with their money. In fact, in social democracies aka places with government health care, consumers have more money to spend on clothing.

 

You may have noticed that Democratic Socialists / Social Democrats on Twitter and other places have added roses to their usernames. The logo of the Democratic Socialists of America also prominently displays a rose, a reference to "Bread and Roses", a central tenant of Democratic Socialism.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bread_and_Roses

 

"Bread and Roses" is a political slogan as well as the name of an associated poem and song. It originated from a speech given by Rose Schneiderman; a line in that speech ("The worker must have bread, but she must have roses, too.") inspired the title of the poem Bread and Roses by James Oppenheim.

 

...

 

The phrase is commonly associated with the successful textile strike in Lawrence, Massachusetts, during January–March 1912, now often referred to as the "Bread and Roses strike". The slogan pairing bread and roses, appealing for both fair wages and dignified conditions, found resonance as transcending "the sometimes tedious struggles for marginal economic advances" in the "light of labor struggles as based on striving for dignity and respect".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, DarkandStormy said:

Staying more on-topic, @Brutus_buckeye feel free to post examples of AOC's buffoonery here.  I'm looking for concrete examples.  Thanks.

 

And this encapsulates what makes trying to have a discussion with a conservative not named Yabo (at least here) so frustrating.

 

-Conservative makes what you perceive to be a wildly inaccurate claim.

-Ask for examples or evidence to back up said claim.

-Conservative disappears and never answers.

Edited by DarkandStormy
  • Like 1

Very Stable Genius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A better description of social democracy is "moral capitalism" or perhaps it is a companion to it since one is a political system and the other an economic system. Then again, some believe moral capitalism is a contradiction in terms...

++++++

 

‘‘His is a country of bitter rivalry between fellow citizens, forced to endlessly spar over the scraps of our system,’’ Kennedy said Monday before a regional business association in Boston. ‘‘My wages can’t grow unless your food stamps go. Your medical bills can’t fall unless my insurance gets taken way. So Americans spend their days fighting each other over economic crumbs - while our system quietly hand delivers the entire pie to those at the top.”

 

Joe Kennedy says Democrats should embrace ‘moral capitalism’

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/28/joe-kennedy-says-democrats-should-embrace-moral-capitalism/KLx9TptSdoMpallXxfYjON/story.html

  • Like 4

"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that's great. Lefties are famously God awful at selling their ideas. Right wing pols all have business degrees, left pols have polisci and the like. That explains things.

Edited by mu2010
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...