“Socialism” is a scare tactic bit of name calling. No Democrat is proposing state control of the means of production, which is the definition of socialism.
Instead of name calling why don’t we discuss policy.
Democrats want to reverse the 2017 tax reform to tilt tax relief away from corporations and the wealthy and towards working Americans. Is this a good policy or a bad policy. The argument in 22017 was that corporations and the wealthy would use their added income to increase investment and add jobs. That has not happened. The Democratic argument is that if you put more money in the hands of working Americans that will increase demand which will lead to increases in jobs.
Given that the Republican policy failed to achieve the intended benefits, why not argue for or against the Democratic alternative without name calling?
DEM socialists want to wipe out the energy sector with the Green New Deal. They want to wipe out the insurance industry by making private insurance illegal. They want to wipe out the loan industry by forgiving all student loans. They want to reimpose punishing regulations on the business community. They want to wipeout all of the tax cuts. They want to open the southern border to anyone and everyone, promising them they will be taken care of by the federal government.
I could go on, but we all know that this race to the left will be unsustainable if any of it is actually implemented. We will indeed become Venezuela in very short order.
I can cut through your anger, but your anger is not a basis for credibility.
You are responding the conservative fake news mischaracterizations of Democratic positions… that are intended to make you angry.
If we can come back to political reality.
No one wants to wipe out the energy sector, but people do want to allow innovation and the creative destruction that is essential to capitalism enable the exploitation of new energy resources rather than clinging to the past.
No one wants to wipe out the insurance industry. They want to provide a public option that would allow all people to be covered, but not replacing employer provided insurance – which would be a political disaster.
There is no “loan industry.” There is a financial services industry that is booming and, heck, if they can repeatedly forgive loans the Donald Trump defaulted on, why can’t the same treatment be extended to young Americans. Or do you prefer one system for the rich and one for everyone else.
“Punishing” regulations. Be specific. Most of us prefer protection of clean air, clean water and limits on the sorts of abuses that led to the 2008 financial crisis. Name one regulation that was eliminated to net positive effect.
Southern border. Your statement is nonsense.
Of course you could go on. There are lots of sources.
Politics requires listening to and understanding all sides… not listening to phony versions of what the other side wants.
All you have is name calling. And the we will become Venezuela is as credible as five years ago when the same people were saying “We will become Greece.”
In case you haven’t noticed, we did not become Greece… and the Greek economy is now rebounding.
Provide some examples of this statement. Tell us about Maduro’s discussion of student debt, or how he opposed propping up the Venezuelan coal industry.
Or let’s get back to facts rather than fantasy and fear please.
Interestingly, let’s hear your thoughts on turning into North Korea. Looking at events that actually occurred. The Kim dynasty has gone through several generations so far. When President Trump talks about Ivanka become President, do you see the parallel?
No one wants to wipe out the energy sector, but people do want to allow innovation and the creative destruction that is essential to capitalism enable the exploitation of new energy resources rather than clinging to the past.
You are correct, no one is explicitly looking to wipe out the energy sector. My argument is about unintended consequences not intention.
It is laughable that the left continues to believe massive government interference equates to innovation. Quite the opposite is true.
Americans can innovate and find alternative energy solutions on their own without Government interference. Much of that is already taking place. The Green New Deal has nothing to do with spurring innovation, and everything to do with big Government imposing their leftist agenda.
Every sector of the global economy is being disrupted by the Internet.
You are aware, I hope, that the Interest was a federal government project.
So why do you insist that the government’s work in inimical to innovation. We can apply the same example to every advance in telephony prior to 1984… and there hasn’t been a meaningful advance in telephony since the government pulled back… digital cellular was being developed in 1983.
If you really want government out of the energy sector… then stop the massive support for the oil industry. But oh no, that’s “good” government interference of course.
Do you really think biotech occurs without kickstarting from the NSF.
The notion of an economy that runs independently of government is an Ayn Randian fantasy. Never existed and never will.
But every time, progressive say, let’s make some shifts in how the government intervenes, we are presented with the fantasy that the government is not involved: there is no oil depletion allowance, there are no farm price subsidies, there is no carried interest deduction; the entire west was settled without the Homestead Act. You want to talk about a nonsensical view.
A discussion of where government intervenes and how is real. A discussion that says the matter is between intervention and no intervention… has no basis in reality.
Not even close to reality. I know about this one and have debated it at length in other threads.
Once again the notion that big government intervention is needed to spur innovation is wishful thinking. History has demonstrated over and over again just the opposite.
Darn autocorrect. I meant the Internet… which began life as a DOD program – the ARPANET and the technology was later commercializing. That is not close to reality. That is reality.
I expect we’ll hear soon that the Manhattan Project was a private equity deal! This is one of the sillier corners of this “Dear me, the SOCIALISTS are coming” matter.
I keep hearing Thomas Jefferson, in Lin-Manuel Miranda’s “Hamilton” ending the sex-scandal part of the story with “Can we get back to politics now?”
