Sanders transforms into contender, still pitches revolution

[NeverSure]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion.

So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I think you're missing a bit from his campaign.

He can't be POTUS anyway for two reasons. Americans aren't ready to elect a socialist, and Donald Trump would kick his ass. Donald Trump drew a record crowd at a venue in Tampa Florida tonight and still left 5,000 people standing outside. That record was set by Elton John back in 1988. Trump crushed it in Jeb Bush's state. He isn't even in S. Carolina which has a primary on Tuesday.

Cheers.

[SpokaneAl]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

They don't actually. It is a society investing in their values and principles. It is a society working together to create a better society and a more fair and equitable society where all can share in the benefits and wealth of a society rather than just a few who have 'gamed the system' for their own benefit and don't contribute back to the society that have enabled their success.

I find your MEMES childish.

And I always enjoy your posts because each one continues to convince me and solidifies my views that Sanders stays on the absolutely will not vote for side of my equation.

[SpokaneAl]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

[Pimay1]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

In other words, how much of my salary that I work for do these who preach they are entitled to it deserve? As my signature says: Socialists reject the idea that the government serves the people and embrace the idea that the government rules the people.

[Pinot]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion.

So why does Sanders call himself a socialist? I think you're missing a bit from his campaign.

He can't be POTUS anyway for two reasons. Americans aren't ready to elect a socialist, and Donald Trump would kick his ass. Donald Trump drew a record crowd at a venue in Tampa Florida tonight and still left 5,000 people standing outside. That record was set by Elton John back in 1988. Trump crushed it in Jeb Bush's state. He isn't even in S. Carolina which has a primary on Tuesday.

Cheers.

12670060_10156636577125725_6806811964461256974_n.jpg

"Americans aren't ready to elect a socialist, and Donald Trump would kick his ass."

The Donald is pathetic candidate. And that's the kind of thinking that defeated the Republicans in the last two elections. If all you watch is Fox News and the right wing media echo chamber, you believe that Republicans are invincible. Their position on everything is necessary for America to survive. That kind of thinking that drives people away from them, because it's nuts.

The Republican candidate is going to appeal only to a portion of the wingnut base and no one else.

No Democrat will vote for Trump. 80% of the electorate is either 18-35, a minority or a woman. You can't expect that 80% to vote Trump or any of the other terrible excuses for candidates. They'll be defeated on the Republican "forced-birth" position alone.

Do you seriously think someone is going to get elected promising to end the right of a woman to have an abortion? Really? Every one of these Republicans is staunchly anti-choice and proud of it.

I love this election. It's the best. The Democrats against pathetic Republicans.

[NeverSure]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

I find your MEMES childish.

If you understand English, then you'll realize that you actually find them "childishly".

[lannarebirth]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

Sanders is not a socialist anymore than Obama was a socialist back in the early days of his presidency when "socialist" became one of the many code words for the "n-word". It is thrown at Sanders in a similar ad hominen fashion. And Sanders is not quite arguing, he remains a bit muddled, for taking money away from people who earned it but from people who are paying themselves far more than they are worth to society and whose income, for the most part, is technically "unearned" income as that is the majority of the income of the 1%. And that is the income that the classical economists like Adam Smith wished the economy to be free of and is largely what they meant by a free market, free of unearned income accumulating to the rentiers. Sanders needs to bring on board some of the better known heterodox economists who can argue more eloquently and more precisely than he why there needs to be an economic revolution against the orthodoxy, not to mention the falsehoods, of neo-liberal economics. Simply arguing for more progressive taxation is not enough.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

Hey Al, Bernie's tax policy eliminates the Alternative Minimum Tax. Ever pay that? I have a few times. It's a bitch.

[up2u2]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

[Pimay1]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

The people decide? What people? Only a few people think they have that privilege and they are all lefty loonies. Boy that's a good one. As a matter of fact that is a classic.

[helpisgood]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

They don't actually. It is a society investing in their values and principles. It is a society working together to create a better society and a more fair and equitable society where all can share in the benefits and wealth of a society rather than just a few who have 'gamed the system' for their own benefit and don't contribute back to the society that have enabled their success.

I find your MEMES childish.

And I always enjoy your posts because each one continues to convince me and solidifies my views that Sanders stays on the absolutely will not vote for side of my equation.

I keep on reading how you do not like socialism. I also agree that a lot of good comes from capitalism. However, you do know that the USA is already a hybrid socialist state, right? There's the New Deal, LBJ's Great Society and so on and so on.

I think one problem for this discussion is that socialism is a very broad term that includes many variations of an economic system. Thus, you can have systems that include variations of socialism and also capitalism existing in harmony side by side, e.g., the USA.

Just look at social security, medicaid, food stamps and medicare. Do you think we should abolish these programs?

Actually, even the US Post Office, authorized by the US Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8) is really one form of socialism. It may not be a legally-protected monopoly, but it sure has dominated its market for a long time. FedEx, UPS, etc. have only relatively recently entered that market. These profit-motivated businesses are succeeding in sectors of the market for which it is better suited. The US Post Office better serves that part of the market that needs pubic backing.

Even the public school systems are a form of socialism. When you pay your taxes, do you think we are giving "free stuff" to the millions and millions of American students that have benefited from free schooling? I hope you think that it is more of an investment in society, the return being what the former students give back to society afterwards. In fact, I think that this is the purpose for any sensible socialist program or policy. Any true capitalist will tell you of the value of a good investment.

My point is that railing against socialism in general and spouting the virtues of socialism in general are best left for a political theory class. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, then we really need to decide what should be publicly funded or best left to the private sector as well as to what degree, if any, should a certain sector of an industry be regulated.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but all of this talk of "they're going to give free stuff away" and that socialism will "end all social evils" becomes empty rhetoric when it comes time to decide on the merits of programs and policies championed by candidates for a new chief executive of the USA and for other public offices.

Thus, if you really want to contribute to the debate, then you need to state more specifically what should be done. Both capitalism and socialism have its merits and flaws. It's really a question of how best to apply certain aspects of each. As Alexander Pope said, "For forms of government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best."

[up2u2]

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

The people decide? What people? Only a few people think they have that privilege and they are all lefty loonies. Boy that's a good one. As a matter of fact that is a classic.

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

[chuckd]

[SpokaneAl]

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

The people decide? What people? Only a few people think they have that privilege and they are all lefty loonies. Boy that's a good one. As a matter of fact that is a classic.

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

So Sanders is going to come in, wave a magic wand, override the Supreme Court and even get involved in how political parties pick their candidates. He is going to decide how much that private citizen should be paid, give everyone free healthcare and free higher education. His version of an even bigger and more intrusive government sounds like a move closer to real socialism to me.

[SpokaneAl]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

They don't actually. It is a society investing in their values and principles. It is a society working together to create a better society and a more fair and equitable society where all can share in the benefits and wealth of a society rather than just a few who have 'gamed the system' for their own benefit and don't contribute back to the society that have enabled their success.

I find your MEMES childish.

And I always enjoy your posts because each one continues to convince me and solidifies my views that Sanders stays on the absolutely will not vote for side of my equation.

I keep on reading how you do not like socialism. I also agree that a lot of good comes from capitalism. However, you do know that the USA is already a hybrid socialist state, right? There's the New Deal, LBJ's Great Society and so on and so on.

I think one problem for this discussion is that socialism is a very broad term that includes many variations of an economic system. Thus, you can have systems that include variations of socialism and also capitalism existing in harmony side by side, e.g., the USA.

Just look at social security, medicaid, food stamps and medicare. Do you think we should abolish these programs?

Actually, even the US Post Office, authorized by the US Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8) is really one form of socialism. It may not be a legally-protected monopoly, but it sure has dominated its market for a long time. FedEx, UPS, etc. have only relatively recently entered that market. These profit-motivated businesses are succeeding in sectors of the market for which it is better suited. The US Post Office better serves that part of the market that needs pubic backing.

Even the public school systems are a form of socialism. When you pay your taxes, do you think we are giving "free stuff" to the millions and millions of American students that have benefited from free schooling? I hope you think that it is more of an investment in society, the return being what the former students give back to society afterwards. In fact, I think that this is the purpose for any sensible socialist program or policy. Any true capitalist will tell you of the value of a good investment.

My point is that railing against socialism in general and spouting the virtues of socialism in general are best left for a political theory class. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, then we really need to decide what should be publicly funded or best left to the private sector as well as to what degree, if any, should a certain sector of an industry be regulated.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but all of this talk of "they're going to give free stuff away" and that socialism will "end all social evils" becomes empty rhetoric when it comes time to decide on the merits of programs and policies championed by candidates for a new chief executive of the USA and for other public offices.

Thus, if you really want to contribute to the debate, then you need to state more specifically what should be done. Both capitalism and socialism have its merits and flaws. It's really a question of how best to apply certain aspects of each. As Alexander Pope said, "For forms of government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best."

You seem to use your examples as reasons why the US should go even further towards socialism. Your quote perfectly summarizes the Sanders platform in my opinion.

[mopar71]

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

The people decide? What people? Only a few people think they have that privilege and they are all lefty loonies. Boy that's a good one. As a matter of fact that is a classic.

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

"The People, the electorate, the Voters" are not some monolithic bloc that thinks and believes the same way. With "The People" divided as they are, you are always going to have some feel that they are not being listened to. If you want to have straight up democracy with one person, one vote (not dead people or pets) then most people will be very unhappy to see a lot of things they approve of changed. I can imagine the religious right really getting out the vote if that were the case. No, I prefer the way we have it now to that.

[up2u2]

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

So Sanders is going to come in, wave a magic wand, override the Supreme Court and even get involved in how political parties pick their candidates. He is going to decide how much that private citizen should be paid, give everyone free healthcare and free higher education. His version of an even bigger and more intrusive government sounds like a move closer to real socialism to me.

Governments pass Laws, Courts uphold those Laws. Publicly funded health care and education tuition is not free. Yes, all Democratic governments have strict rules on the electoral process. There is no reason Bernie's government will be any bigger, possibly smaller. Certainly less expensive than the current one. There are only a few essential key sectors Bernie will be Socialising so they are run cost effectively and benefit the American People rather than the wealthy elite and Corporate America no need to panic, no ones coming to harm you.

[helpisgood]

On post 314, SpokaneAl wrote:

"You seem to use your examples as reasons why the US should go even further towards socialism. Your quote perfectly summarizes the Sanders platform in my opinion."

My reply:

Why do you say "go even further"? Please explain. That was clearly not my point. I refer you to the paragraph regarding FedEx and UPS. I did state that the trend there is towards more capitalism in a market and was working well, correct?


Also, please explain what you meant regarding your comment about the quote. I don't understand your point.

[Pimay1]

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

So Sanders is going to come in, wave a magic wand, override the Supreme Court and even get involved in how political parties pick their candidates. He is going to decide how much that private citizen should be paid, give everyone free healthcare and free higher education. His version of an even bigger and more intrusive government sounds like a move closer to real socialism to me.

Governments pass Laws, Courts uphold those Laws. Publicly funded health care and education tuition is not free. Yes, all Democratic governments have strict rules on the electoral process. There is no reason Bernie's government will be any bigger, possibly smaller. Certainly less expensive than the current one. There are only a few essential key sectors Bernie will be Socialising so they are run cost effectively and benefit the American People rather than the wealthy elite and Corporate America no need to panic, no ones coming to harm you.

Key sectors Socialized will run cost effectively, less expensive and smaller government? Pie in the sky my friend. At least the people at Forbes think so and they should know.

The new federal taxes required to fund the Sanders health plan will be $36.3 trillion. In short the Sanders health plan would require a 71% increase in federal spending over the next decade. It will cost 40% to 49% more than advertised.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/01/20/why-bernie-sanders-health-plan-will-cost-at-least-40-more-than-advertised/#310aad48252a

[up2u2]

Key sectors Socialized will run cost effectively, less expensive and smaller government? Pie in the sky my friend. At least the people at Forbes think so and they should know.

The new federal taxes required to fund the Sanders health plan will be $36.3 trillion. In short the Sanders health plan would require a 71% increase in federal spending over the next decade. It will cost 40% to 49% more than advertised.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/01/20/why-bernie-sanders-health-plan-will-cost-at-least-40-more-than-advertised/#310aad48252a

Correct if you compare the US system of privately run health care to the publicly funded health care system in every single industrialised nation on the planet you will find it is infinitely less expensive with far better patient outcomes.

Put simply a US citizen has a choice they can continue paying $5500 dollars per year to private health care providers, which includes a $5000 per year windfall to the privately run health care system or pay a $500 a year levy that will fund the entire health care system for all Americans.

The number from the private health care shills seems to keep getting larger. Last week it was $17 trillion this week it is $36 trillion. I am sure next week it will be $50 trillion. lol. What they do is only add up the $500 levy and conveniently forget about the $5000 saving per person. So you will find once you get that basic math right it comes out to be a 35% saving on health care costs. The government negotiates even more savings by setting health care costs. The government sets the fee plus a reasonable profit margin for the provider. So you realise more savings for citizens.

What happens now is the health care industry comes up with whatever number pops into their head and that is the fee. Commonly known as the Chargemaster health care system. Bernie simply reverses the tables and puts the People's interests ahead of the greed in the private health care system.

Are the greedy pigs that control the health care system going to come out all guns blazing to protect their greed? Damn straight they are. You can read about it all in Forbes Magazine.

'Feel The Bern' - 'A Future You Can Believe In'

[boomerangutang]

I've figured it out. I already knew that elder Americans (those over 60) were stuck equating the world 'socialism' with the hated word 'communism', but now it's even clearer, when I recall how Marxism and Leninism bandied the word 'socialism' around. It's too bad. Socialism has become yet another English word whose meaning is slanted. Other words in that category: love, relationship, cell, process, ....

The lines are getting drawn in America, as Sanders gains momentum. News outlets are reporting that many more of Hillary's emails will be released in coming weeks. Reps are joyous, because they've convinced themselves to hate everything about her, and Reps also think Sanders will be easy to beat. Regardless, the Republican attack machine will be running full bore from now until November.

The same posters herein who were sure that Obama would get beaten by R&R 4 years ago, are sure the Reps will take the cake this time around. I venture they'll be wrong again. All in all, it should be a grand mud-slinging party. I just wish I were in the pipeline to get some of the hundreds of millions of $$'s which are getting spent. Perhaps I should have stayed in the states and opened a banner printing biz.

I predict it will be Clinton vs Cruz, and the madam will get to move back in the WH.

[chuckd]

The "madam" might be living in government provided quarters but it remains to be seen if it will be the White House or the Big House.

[Johpa]

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

I am unaware of anyone suggesting that others are "earning too much" in the sense that there should be limits on income. Perhaps you are trying to ask who decides and imposes the tax structure in the US and I believe the constitution (Article 1:Section 8) gives that power to congress. We the people elect the members of congress and thus there is nothing unconstitutional about people voting for candidates that would change the current taxation system. And again, I know of no candidate who is advocating an upper limit on income in the sense of "too much". I am one of the many who argue for a far more progressive tax system whereby the higher the income the higher the tax rate. But that does not create limits of "too much" income.

As far as bigger or smaller government that is a different question that is debatable. But changing the tax code does not impact the size of government. For example I would advocate higher taxes on unearned income and greatly lowering the taxes on wages. The ultimate direction of that debate does not impact the size of the government.

I don't brand all wealthy people as evil. By happenstance, I am on first name basis with the three wealthiest people west of the Cascades, yes those three, and I don't consider any of them evil although one of them is not a pleasant person to be around. To the best of my knowledge, two now lean towards the Democrats (the old school Dan Evans Republicans from Laurelhurst have all disowned the Republican Party) and one is a silly Libertarian. Ironically the bastion of the far right wing nutters are your neighbors in the Inland Empire who are dependent upon the government run (socialist) Bonneville Power, government agricultural subsidies, and taxes "confiscated" from west of the Cascades and then spent east of the Cascades to maintain your infrastructure. Travel but merely a few miles outside Spokane in any direction and will encounter a socialist society where everyone is dependent upon the government.

[sirineou]

fo

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

post-176603-14552412504822_thumb.jpg

They don't actually. It is a society investing in their values and principles. It is a society working together to create a better society and a more fair and equitable society where all can share in the benefits and wealth of a society rather than just a few who have 'gamed the system' for their own benefit and don't contribute back to the society that have enabled their success.

I find your MEMES childish.

And I always enjoy your posts because each one continues to convince me and solidifies my views that Sanders stays on the absolutely will not vote for side of my equation.

I keep on reading how you do not like socialism. I also agree that a lot of good comes from capitalism. However, you do know that the USA is already a hybrid socialist state, right? There's the New Deal, LBJ's Great Society and so on and so on.

I think one problem for this discussion is that socialism is a very broad term that includes many variations of an economic system. Thus, you can have systems that include variations of socialism and also capitalism existing in harmony side by side, e.g., the USA.

Just look at social security, medicaid, food stamps and medicare. Do you think we should abolish these programs?

Actually, even the US Post Office, authorized by the US Constitution (Art. I, sec. 8) is really one form of socialism. It may not be a legally-protected monopoly, but it sure has dominated its market for a long time. FedEx, UPS, etc. have only relatively recently entered that market. These profit-motivated businesses are succeeding in sectors of the market for which it is better suited. The US Post Office better serves that part of the market that needs pubic backing.

Even the public school systems are a form of socialism. When you pay your taxes, do you think we are giving "free stuff" to the millions and millions of American students that have benefited from free schooling? I hope you think that it is more of an investment in society, the return being what the former students give back to society afterwards. In fact, I think that this is the purpose for any sensible socialist program or policy. Any true capitalist will tell you of the value of a good investment.

My point is that railing against socialism in general and spouting the virtues of socialism in general are best left for a political theory class. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, then we really need to decide what should be publicly funded or best left to the private sector as well as to what degree, if any, should a certain sector of an industry be regulated.

I don't mean to rain on your parade, but all of this talk of "they're going to give free stuff away" and that socialism will "end all social evils" becomes empty rhetoric when it comes time to decide on the merits of programs and policies championed by candidates for a new chief executive of the USA and for other public offices.

Thus, if you really want to contribute to the debate, then you need to state more specifically what should be done. Both capitalism and socialism have its merits and flaws. It's really a question of how best to apply certain aspects of each. As Alexander Pope said, "For forms of government let fools contest; whatever is best administered is best."

Best response on this subject I have read yet

what people fail to understand it is that it's to their advantage to live in a healthy, wealthy, educated society, and should be happy to pay for it.

It was Socialism that got us out of the first depression and it is socialism that will get us out of this one.

I have already contributed to Sanders campaign, and will again soon.

A hybrid Capitalist/socialist system brings the best of both worlds.

Even Capitalists should be for that. Without a healthy consumer who will buy their products? In fact the economic problems we have now are for the most part consumption side problem.

Capitalism has made the cow sick, and you cant milk a sick cow..

[NeverSure]

Socialists take from people who earn it, and give it to people who didn't earn it. That's not my quote but I find the below graphic very ironic.

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

"Just like the GOP, the Democrat Establishment campaigns on its supposed ideological credentials, but governs solely in the interest of its corporate donors and lobbyists."

"What they (Americans) do care about is not being able to find work because America’s manufacturing base was destroyed by free-trade deals and globalization. What they do care about is that if and when a job opportunity finally does come around, they need to compete with illegal aliens who will do the same work for a fraction of the pay." - Laura Ingraham.

Hillary and Bernie can pander to minorities and spout their other soon to be broken promises, but Americans are going to vote against illegal immigration and job losses due to free trade especially with China.

Count on it.

[sirineou]

And who decides that those people are earning too much? Yup a bigger government and more spending and more confiscating is always the answer. Just take more from those evil ones and things will be just fine.

The People decide. The People also decide on what taxes are spent on.

"Just like the GOP, the Democrat Establishment campaigns on its supposed ideological credentials, but governs solely in the interest of its corporate donors and lobbyists."

"What they (Americans) do care about is not being able to find work because America’s manufacturing base was destroyed by free-trade deals and globalization. What they do care about is that if and when a job opportunity finally does come around, they need to compete with illegal aliens who will do the same work for a fraction of the pay." - Laura Ingraham.

Both the democrats and the republicans are the same, they are both the liberal and conservative wing of the property party.

watching HRC and Trump is like watching a Horror movie where the kids are going to the basement and you seat there thinking , No No, don't go to the basement, but they always do, and you know what happens to them there

So will we go to the basement again?

[sgtsabai]

I do think the American voters will vote against those that support the so-called "free trade" agreements which have nothing to do with trade. Unfortunately, like everything else, the majority has no say. Illegal immigration? Yea, the redneck racists probably will vote their little pea pickin' racist hearts there. You are right, Hillary and Trump pander to the minorities and both lie, lie, and lie some more. Bernie speaks truth to the power and doesn't pander. Most right wing racists won't like the fact that MLK would probably support Bernie, I do. http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/hillary-high-ranking-member-dc-power-elite-and-thats-why-she-cant-comprehend-bernies?akid=13971.85778.dLl_ov&rd=1&src=newsletter1050619&t=8

http://www.truthdig.com/arts_culture/print/the_great_american_stickup_is_bush_really_20100916

http://www.alternet.org/election-2016/reality-check-democrats-would-martin-luther-king-be-supporting-bernie?akid=13969.85778.KPbdnz&rd=1&src=newsletter1050548&t=6

http://www.infoworld.com/article/3032543/security/all-the-presidents-spies-which-candidates-back-the-nsa.html?token=%23tk.IFWNLE_nlt_infoworld_daily_2016-02-12&idg_eid=30084a49becbff952e7c21d80329da0d&utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=InfoWorld%20Daily:%20Morning%20Edition%202016-02-12&utm_term=infoworld_daily#tk.IFW_nlt_infoworld_daily_2016-02-12

[lannarebirth]

The People, the Electorate, the Voters decide. Those People.

This is one of Bernie's key issues. To reform the electoral process where the wealthy elite and Corporate America cannot use their money, power and influence to over ride the will of the electorate. To get bribery and corruption from the wealthy elite and Corporate America out of Congress. A Government that represents the People / Electorate / Voters. You know Democracy.

No more SuperPacs, no more Superdelegates,, submissions to Congressmen from lobbyists will be published in full for voters to read, transcripts of meetings will also be published, No more 'dark money' from bogus 'Institutions' like Freedom for America Coalition which is code for 'a bunch of rich tossers got together' to bribe Congress but want to make it look like they are the 'good guys'.

So Sanders is going to come in, wave a magic wand, override the Supreme Court and even get involved in how political parties pick their candidates. He is going to decide how much that private citizen should be paid, give everyone free healthcare and free higher education. His version of an even bigger and more intrusive government sounds like a move closer to real socialism to me.

Governments pass Laws, Courts uphold those Laws. Publicly funded health care and education tuition is not free. Yes, all Democratic governments have strict rules on the electoral process. There is no reason Bernie's government will be any bigger, possibly smaller. Certainly less expensive than the current one. There are only a few essential key sectors Bernie will be Socialising so they are run cost effectively and benefit the American People rather than the wealthy elite and Corporate America no need to panic, no ones coming to harm you.

Key sectors Socialized will run cost effectively, less expensive and smaller government? Pie in the sky my friend. At least the people at Forbes think so and they should know.

The new federal taxes required to fund the Sanders health plan will be $36.3 trillion. In short the Sanders health plan would require a 71% increase in federal spending over the next decade. It will cost 40% to 49% more than advertised.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2016/01/20/why-bernie-sanders-health-plan-will-cost-at-least-40-more-than-advertised/#310aad48252a

That number isn't even close to being accurate. They pulled those numbers out of their ass. Speaking of which, neither is your signature, but I'm sure you know that already.

There, fixed it for you:

The death toll for (sic) socialism communist totalitarianism exceeds 100 million in the 20th century.

[NeverSure]

Here's a result of a poll asking how much excitement is brewing for the next Democrat debate.

[NeverSure]

There isn't much public excitement for Bern and Hillary debating.

"GOP Easily Outdrawing Democrats in Debate Ratings." - Wall Street Journal.

Last week's Democrat debate drew 8.03 million viewers. The last Republican debate (N. Carolina) drew 13.2 million.

Democrats have so much to be excited about. Yawn.

[lannarebirth]

There isn't much public excitement for Bern and Hillary debating.

"GOP Easily Outdrawing Democrats in Debate Ratings." - Wall Street Journal.

Last week's Democrat debate drew 8.03 million viewers. The last Republican debate (N. Carolina) drew 13.2 million.

Democrats have so much to be excited about. Yawn.

It's like auto racing. Most of the people watch just to see the crashes.