Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Yes, there's technical differences between true socialism and socialist-light as in the government ownership of companies.
But what most Americans think of when someone describes themselves as a socialist, right or wrong, is someone who advocates an unreasonable amount of wealth redistribution, mostly in the form of taxation and mostly to the benefit of those who did not earn it and the politicians advocating it of course.
Yes, they absolutely do.
Republicans will paint him as a big-spending, big-taxing SOCIALIST and he will be dead in the water.
The Bern sure had a lot of praise for Daniel Ortega.
Yes, there's technical differences between true socialism and socialist-light as in the government ownership of companies.
But what most Americans think of when someone describes themselves as a socialist, right or wrong, is someone who advocates an unreasonable amount of wealth redistribution, mostly in the form of taxation and mostly to the benefit of those who did not earn it and the politicians advocating it of course.
For some the difference may be as minor as you suggest, but the more you know about politics and these forms of government, you begin to recognize these differences a little differently, a bit more than just "technical" differences. Clearly from reading some of the comments in this thread, the real understanding of socialism is off by a fair amount, so maybe a standard definition will help. At least for me, sticking to a common definition like this one helps to keep all the biased misrepresentation to a minimum:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."
As for what Bernie represents, a true socialist by most common definitions he is not. Fact is, much that Sanders has advocated is nothing all that new or radical, but of course those who don't like his agenda or don't understand it will brand him in all the negative ways those folks can think to do, just like Obama was a black, communist, foreign-born Muslim terrorist. Didn't work to keep him from becoming POTUS though.
Why? Because enough people know better than to buy into that heavy partisan rancor, about as intelligent as kids fighting on the playground...
Get more focused on the actual truths of these matters, and you will have to better define what you mean by "an unreasonable amount of wealth distribution," for example. What you mean when you write for the "benefit of those who did not earn it." Just for starters, or you too are just blowing political rhetorical smoke in an already smoky room!
You don't agree with a progressive tax code? You think that when Romney let us know that he paid a rate of around 14 percent net Federal taxes on income of about $14 million -- in one year -- that is too much? You want to cut off the women and children receiving food stamps? Is that the great benefit you want to cut off to those who didn't "earn it?"
For some the difference may be as minor as you suggest, but the more you know about politics and these forms of government, you begin to recognize these differences a little differently, a bit more than just "technical" differences. Clearly from reading some of the comments in this thread, the real understanding of socialism is off by a fair amount, so maybe a standard definition will help. At least for me, sticking to a common definition like this one helps to keep all the biased misrepresentation to a minimum:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."
As for what Bernie represents, a true socialist by most common definitions he is not. Fact is, much that Sanders has advocated is nothing all that new or radical, but of course those who don't like his agenda or don't understand it will brand him in all the negative ways those folks can think to do, just like Obama was a black, communist, foreign-born Muslim terrorist. Didn't work to keep him from becoming POTUS though.
Why? Because enough people know better than to buy into that heavy partisan rancor, about as intelligent as kids fighting on the playground...
Get more focused on the actual truths of these matters, and you will have to better define what you mean by "an unreasonable amount of wealth distribution," for example. What you mean when you write for the "benefit of those who did not earn it." Just for starters, or you too are just blowing political rhetorical smoke in an already smoky room!
You don't agree with a progressive tax code? You think that when Romney let us know that he paid a rate of around 14 percent net Federal taxes on income of about $14 million -- in one year -- that is too much? You want to cut off the women and children receiving food stamps? Is that the great benefit you want to cut off to those who didn't "earn it?"
Just asking...
I believe in a flat tax, no deductions and no exceptions (within able bodied, non retired)
I find no valid reason whatsoever that any one American should pay a higher or lower percentage of their income in taxes than any other American.
Using a simple 10% as an example...
10% of 100,000 is 10,000
10% of 10,000 is 1000
So, even at a 10% flat rate, the person who makes 100,000 is paying as much in taxes as 10 people who make 10,000.
And at the same time, the person who makes 100,000 quite probably uses less in government services than one person who makes 10,000....much less ten of them.
Exactly why is this not considered "fair share" by the left?
I also believe that any taxation beyond what is necessary for the implementation of constitutionally enumerated powers of the government is tantamount to theft.
For some the difference may be as minor as you suggest, but the more you know about politics and these forms of government, you begin to recognize these differences a little differently, a bit more than just "technical" differences. Clearly from reading some of the comments in this thread, the real understanding of socialism is off by a fair amount, so maybe a standard definition will help. At least for me, sticking to a common definition like this one helps to keep all the biased misrepresentation to a minimum:
"Socialism is a range of economic and social systems characterised by social ownership and democratic control of the means of production, as well as the political ideologies, theories, and movements that aim at their establishment. Social ownership may refer to public ownership, cooperative ownership, citizen ownership of equity, or any combination of these. Although there are many varieties of socialism and there is no single definition encapsulating all of them, social ownership is the common element shared by its various forms."
As for what Bernie represents, a true socialist by most common definitions he is not. Fact is, much that Sanders has advocated is nothing all that new or radical, but of course those who don't like his agenda or don't understand it will brand him in all the negative ways those folks can think to do, just like Obama was a black, communist, foreign-born Muslim terrorist. Didn't work to keep him from becoming POTUS though.
Why? Because enough people know better than to buy into that heavy partisan rancor, about as intelligent as kids fighting on the playground...
Get more focused on the actual truths of these matters, and you will have to better define what you mean by "an unreasonable amount of wealth distribution," for example. What you mean when you write for the "benefit of those who did not earn it." Just for starters, or you too are just blowing political rhetorical smoke in an already smoky room!
You don't agree with a progressive tax code? You think that when Romney let us know that he paid a rate of around 14 percent net Federal taxes on income of about $14 million -- in one year -- that is too much? You want to cut off the women and children receiving food stamps? Is that the great benefit you want to cut off to those who didn't "earn it?"
Just asking...
If you have conditions like those intractably unemployed who've demonstrated in the streets of Brixton for over half a century, you'll likely want even more socialism to make it better, more of the dog what bit.
You can never call around enough for someone to pick up the handle in the grass and pull the Big Wagon.
I believe in a flat tax, no deductions and no exceptions (within able bodied, non retired)
I find no valid reason whatsoever that any one American should pay a higher or lower percentage of their income in taxes than any other American.
Using a simple 10% as an example...
10% of 100,000 is 10,000
10% of 10,000 is 1000
So, even at a 10% flat rate, the person who makes 100,000 is paying as much in taxes as 10 people who make 10,000.
And at the same time, the person who makes 100,000 quite probably uses less in government services than one person who makes 10,000....much less ten of them.
Exactly why is this not considered "fair share" by the left?
I also believe that any taxation beyond what is necessary for the implementation of constitutionally enumerated powers of the government is tantamount to theft.
You do understand how expansive those enumerated powers actually are?
What is Commerce?
What is Comgress' Spending Power?
What is Necessary and Proper to carry out those enumerations?
1. Some will vote for Hillary.
2. Some of the Green party.
3. some may pick another third-party candidate or write someone in.
4. Some like me will not vote this time around.
5. A small minority vote for Trump.
Anyone that says they know how many of the Bernie supporters will choose any of the above most likely will be wrong. Granted I'm really hoping though that turned out overall is very low. To show that the general electorate displeasure with both candidates.
Also to add. I'm going to be wondering how many moderate Republicans go for Hillary. That's going to be the most interesting dynamic of this election. Do they replace any and all votes that Hillary loses to disgruntled Bernie supporters.
Most will get stoned and miss the election. Some will vote for crooked clinkton because they have addled brains or believe the nonsense the left has spewed about Trump. Some will vote for Trump but I suspect Bernie's Babies will have little impact unless they can get him over the top as the dem candidate.
Republicans will paint him as a big-spending, big-taxing SOCIALIST and he will be dead in the water.
The Bern sure had a lot of praise for Daniel Ortega.
Funny how he is labeled a socialist more often than he is labeled Bernie Sanders in all mainstream media, and he still beats Hillary against any Republican nominee by wide margins. You seem to make it clear that you hate Bernie's guts and would vote Trump if he is the nominee, same with most of the other Hillary fans in here who say the would vote Ted Cruz. Its all just smoke and mirrors. Hardly any Hillary supporters actually do it, unlike independents who support Bernie. If you are so afraid of the Republicans, you must have been terrified in 2008 when Obama the socialist, muslim, Kenyan was nominated who praised America-hating pastors!
FDR was DEMONIZED as a big-spending, big-taxing SOCIALIST for decades! Most popular president ever!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
