I am going to say this plain and simply. I hope you don't get offended. You have ZERO idea what you are talking about. I have no respect for yours. You have no clue. And I don't want to hear it. To say that defines Bernie is to say you hear headlines and that sounds good to you.
You don't know what SOCIALISM even is.
This post was edited by WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH at February 5, 2020 2:12 PM MST
I do have a clue, and I know that raising taxes, giving forgiveness of loans, and freely allowing immigration is not going to create any kind of economy I want to live in.
Socialism kills economic growth. Strong economic growth is what produces jobs, tax revenue and a better standard of living for everyone, including the poor and middle class. Socialism strangles economic growth in the crib by penalizing success and rewarding failure. When you loot the successful people in a society to give it to the less successful, you quite naturally reduce the number of successful people and encourage more people to fail. This leads to a never-ending cycle.
Socialism stifles free speech. Socialism can't survive honest, informed debate about its merits among people who are free to choose or reject it because it would not survive the conversation. Socialism leads to an increasingly tyrannical government. Freedom and socialism go together like oil and water. The more socialism you have, the less freedom you will have because socialism can't survive if people are free to choose whether they want socialism or not. People who are free to say what they want will criticize socialism's many failures.
Socialism requires a massive bureaucracy that almost inevitably grows. As the government grows, it inevitably becomes more centralized, more distant from the people and ultimately more menacing. Socialism is all about turning people against each other. It has to be. After all, if you believe in controlling people's lives, the people who don't wish to be controlled need to be vilified. If you believe in confiscating the wealth of successful people who won't give it up willingly, then others must be convinced they're terrible human beings who deserve to be punished.
Socialism has nothing to do with free speech. You better do your research a little better. Tyrannical governments are usually far-right authoritarianism dictatorships.
Right now the US already has Socialist programs in place: Social Security Medicare Veterans Administration Fire Departments Police Departments Public Utility companies Cooperatives Internet Service The list continues...
Hmm. Socialism is not just one thing. And what it is - in all its various forms - is enormously variable.
"Socialism" as a word began with Marxism and the developments of Marxist theory. From Marxist ideology, the early forms of Communism developed. But, in practice, they turned out to be tyrannies that bore no resemblance to the ideas proposed by Marx. We can see from the results that no one in their right mind would want to live in or become the citizen of a communist nation.
The closest any country has ever got to Marxist socialism is Israel, and there only in the kibbutzes - with mixed results. Some are highly successful, and others not.
Americans tend to equate liberalism with "socialism" - and for so long that they take it for granted and have forgotten what liberalism stands for. These two ideologies have nothing in common.
The inventor (and later major contributor) of classical liberalism was John Stuart Mill, 1808 -1873. In his book, On Liberty, he argues that any human being can be wrong about something and unaware of it. Similarly, any group of any size can be just as wrong without realising it.
We can look back and see Nazism as a perfect example of how an entire nation can be (at least for a time) catastrophically amoral.
Mill argues that we need a mode of living and of government which allows the highest degree of freedom of thought, expression and action possible - hence the word liberalism - a political philosophy that promotes maximum freedom. Mills asserts one essential limit to total freedom - "The only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others." [Mill, J. S. On Liberty, Penguin Classics, 2006] With him, omissions that cause harm are as serious as any crime - hence he would see health and safety laws as essential.
If you think about it - the extreme conservatives and gun lobbyists of the USA are often more "liberal" than the ones they call liberals - in the sense that they support fewer of the restrictions that prevent inevitable harm. Or to be more specific - they're more likely to object to Mill's proviso.
Modern liberals take the proviso very seriously. They (we, since I count myself as one,) abhor racism, sexism, persecution of LGBTQI people, ageism, and other support publicly funded education, medicine and social safety webs as mechanisms to prevent harm.
This kind of liberal democracy has evolved in Great Britain, Scandinavia, Holland, Belgium, West Germany and Greenland. Each has its sets of problems but, for the most part, these countries demonstrate that a Liberal Democracy can be spectacularly economically successful with both thriving social safety nets and high living standards. This includes the fact that they have led the way in introducing renewable power technologies to reduce greenhouse gases. It's true that all these countries are presently drifting further to the right, mainly due to reactions to high intakes of foreigners. However, all of them are still far "left" of the USA.
I believe that conservatives view liberal policies as a threat to prosperity. In my view, the examples of these countries prove that it is not.
This post was edited by inky at February 6, 2020 10:35 PM MST
I would NOT give one man or woman so much power! It only works if our President respects the checks and balances built into our government.
This post was edited by Benedict Arnold at February 6, 2020 7:58 AM MST
I don't think the president really has much power anyway. He is the "face" of the government, more or less, but there is so much more that goes into it.
I am perfectly happy with the way things have been under Trump. Yes, the man himself says some inflammatory things, but I generally agree with his policies.
If elected officials actually follow their respective roles in government, no one branch has all-consuming power. This president, with a wink and a nod from Congress, has taken upon himself more power than the Constitution has allocated to him.
Define "lobbyist". As I pointed out on another thread, the First Amendment guarantees the Right of the People to petition their government. If you get rid of people who do so for a living ... how would you allow people on the far side of the nation to petition? What about people who share common interests?
Maybe if government officials were required to hold "town hall" meetings in their district. Or dismantle the nation's capital, and hold electronic meetings - so our representatives are easily accessible to those who live in their districts.
I would declare martial law, and remove Congress ... then call for a Constitutional Convention.
I would push for a lottery-style drawing among eligible adults to serve as representatives, instead of voting. That would take money out of elections, and weaken political parties (which hold too much political power as private groups). It would also increase the diversity of our government representatives. Men/Women, Rich/Poor, Ethnicities.
If there aren't enough workers to fill unskilled jobs, how would you get that work done if you don't import them? How many Americans do you think would toil in the fields at harvest time under a blazing sun to do back-breaking work? This country was built - literally - by immigrants.
This post was edited by SpunkySenior at February 6, 2020 8:08 AM MST
I would put the good of the country above my own personal interests. I would work to unite the country and encourage Congress to work together across party lines. I would set a good example of civility and respect towards everyone regardless of their political beliefs.
Can I dissolve Congress and be the dictator? Probably not, so I guess I can't really make any changes. The first thing I would do is dismiss all of the appointments from previous administrations. The second thing I would do is review the previous administrations' executive orders and decide which ones to keep and which ones to undo with my own executive orders.
I don't know what else I could get done because there are still two parties that I don't like so I agree with one about half the time and I agree with the other one the other half of the time so I probably wouldn't get much done.
WM BARR . =ABSOLUTE TRASH 