In U.S., Socialist Presidential Candidates Least Appealing

[Atlas Has Shrugged]

Clark, saying socialism is evil for those reasons is like saying cancer is bad because it makes you feel bad. You have to some deeper arguments.

And yes, economic freedom is a concept. I call it the golden rule-he who has got the gold makes the rules. It's been like that since the dawn of civilization and will remain that way in some manner under communism or capitalism.

[PJ]

Clark, saying socialism is evil for those reasons is like saying cancer is bad because it makes you feel bad. You have to some deeper arguments.

And yes, economic freedom is a concept. I call it the golden rule-he who has got the gold makes the rules. It's been like that since the dawn of civilization and will remain that way in some manner under communism or capitalism.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by 'economic freedom,' but I took Clark's interpretation to be that deregulation and free market capitalism is a protection of personal liberties.

[Famous Mortimer]

Since this dude is a teenager, maybe someone actually should go through the process of actually explaining how he's objectively wrong. As I'm in my late 20s though and I've gone through that process with like 400 other people, I can't be bothered.

[WVdemocrat]

Since this dude is a teenager, maybe someone actually should go through the process of actually explaining how he's objectively wrong. As I'm in my late 20s though and I've gone through that process with like 400 other people, I can't be bothered.

Listen, and understand. He can't be bargained with. He can't be reasoned with. He doesn't feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And he absolutely will not stop, ever, until rational thought is dead.

[Clark Kent]

Clark, saying socialism is evil for those reasons is like saying cancer is bad because it makes you feel bad. You have to some deeper arguments.

And yes, economic freedom is a concept. I call it the golden rule-he who has got the gold makes the rules. It's been like that since the dawn of civilization and will remain that way in some manner under communism or capitalism.

Nobody supporting socialism here has given any arguments, either.

But fine.

Historically, socialism has never worked. In addition to the obvious examples of the Eastern Bloc during World War II, socialism has also failed in modern-day Europe, which is suffering far worse than the much more capitalistic United States, and, prior to the early 1990s, India and even "socialist utopia" Sweden, which only recovered from their recession by reforming to a less socialistic model.

Socialism slows down economic growth. It causes unemployment to rise by raising taxes to an unsustainable level. It makes the people dependent on the government by having the government provide everything, funded by taxpayers. Socialism requires the establishment of a nanny state and increased authoritarianism to function. Socialism is ineffective because the government is inherently inefficient at managing industries. Just look at AmTrak, which has never turned a profit.

Finally, socialism is bad because it increases government overreach. My views on welfare can be summed up as "Government has the responsibility to provide what individual citizens cannot do for themselves", but socialism goes far beyond that and attempts to provide all basic necessities for everyone even if they can afford it themselves, resulting in a secure life where all basic needs are met, but people live in perpetual poverty.

[Adam Griffin]

Historically, socialism has never worked.

See: Western Europe, Canada, Australia, and practically the entirety of the developed world for flavors and variations of substantially socialist policies. The US invented the largest and most socialistic program in the history of the world - it's called Social Security. I'm sure there will be a cadre of right-wing and socialist posters alike screaming "this is not socialism!11", but they are in fact elements of socialism isolated from a purist system - and they are superior to capitalist "equivalents".

In addition to the obvious examples of the Eastern Bloc during World War II, socialism has also failed in modern-day Europe, which is suffering far worse than the much more capitalistic United States, and, prior to the early 1990s, India and even "socialist utopia" Sweden, which only recovered from their recession by reforming to a less socialistic model.

Europe is suffering today because they pursued policies of austerity far deeper than the United States. Europe enacted austerity. The US enacted a stimulus (albeit milquetoast and minuscule in nature; the main element here is that we didn't shoot ourselves in our already-wounded foot). During the height of the global recession, Europe as a whole cut spending; the US increased spending. Even before the recession, European countries as a whole had a lower debt to GDP ratio than the US. Today, the US has the highest rate of economic growth for any first-world nation when balanced with population size. Half of Europe continues to teeter-totter on the brink of recession. Yes, Europe is faltering: now look at the policies they pursued during that time.

Socialism slows down economic growth.

This is quite debatable, but the rate of economic growth is not all that important - where that growth goes is important. A 4% rate of GDP growth in a country with levels of economic inequality like the US is objectively inferior from the perspective of a consumer-based economy than a country with 2% GDP growth that has economic inequality comparable to that of Denmark. Why? Because in the former, wages and earnings for >90% of the country remain flat or decline when measured across decades; in the latter, real income continues to grow and tangible standard of living increases. Rich people do not grow the economy; they redistribute wealth from others to themselves.

It causes unemployment to rise by raising taxes to an unsustainable level. It makes the people dependent on the government by having the government provide everything, funded by taxpayers. Socialism requires the establishment of a nanny state and increased authoritarianism to function. Socialism is ineffective because the government is inherently inefficient at managing industries. Just look at AmTrak, which has never turned a profit.

Everything doesn't exist to turn a profit. Believe it or not, many public services exist to improve quality of life, which almost always have an impact on the standard and cost of living for the people it influences. AmTrak's NE Corridor results in stations being within 25 miles of 30% of the country. Over 12,000,000 passengers use it annually, with 70% of them travelling 100-300 miles per trip. In smaller trips and along different routes, many people leverage the infrastructure to be able to work in higher-paying areas and export that income into more rural and suburban areas, even after absorbing the cost of the train. Along the NE corridor, it is sometimes actually quicker to take the train than drive. This is just one example. If tax cuts, profusely and almost meaninglessly distributed throughout the country to millions of people to create drips and drops of quality of life improvement while simultaneously resulting in expanded deficits makes economic sense to you, then this shouldn't be any more difficult to understand.

Finally, socialism is bad because it increases government overreach. My views on welfare can be summed up as "Government has the responsibility to provide what individual citizens cannot do for themselves", but socialism goes far beyond that and attempts to provide all basic necessities for everyone even if they can afford it themselves, resulting in a secure life where all basic needs are met, but people live in perpetual poverty.

First of all, please abandon your buzz-words like "government overreach". Secondly, why is the free market afraid of a little competition? Because it knows that government can in many instances provide a comparable or superior service at a lower rate than the private sector, merely because profit is not the objective - merely breaking even will do in this case, and sometimes, not even that is necessary - and overhead costs are lower. More choices, I say!

[Mercenary]

Economic freedom is certainly a concept.
You are either free to engage in economic activities as you like or you are restricted from doing so.
Low economic freedom would be not having control over your money or purchases. An economy that is centrally planned to the extent that all items are allocated through planning rather than individuals freely choosing what they wish to purchase would be an example of such. Ultimately the economic freedom in the US and in 1st world countries in general is quite high. It isn't just about how high your taxes are.

Socialism I think is fine on a small local scale in a voluntary manner. I do not think full blown socialism could work with a country as large or diverse as the U.S. However, greater economic planning could work if done right just as less central economic planning could work. There isn't only one solution that works. Some solutions will work and some wont, but among the ones that do work some may be at odds with each other.

Also someone calling themselves socialist is different than being called socialist by a bunch of tea party types. It will stick more with someone like Sanders than it did with Obama. Words matter to people. Even if the policies are the same, one person could win because how they present the policies and one person could lose in a landslide. I don't think Sanders suggestions are socialism, they are just more economic planning. I don't even think his suggestions necessarily lead to less economic freedom.

Neither capitalism or socialism are right or wrong, they just are. I think both can work, but generally it is a combination of the two that tends to work best.

[Clark Kent]

You see, I agree with you that Social Security is socialism. That's why I believe that it should be phased out into private plans.

[YaBoyNY]

You see, I agree with you that Social Security is socialism. That's why I believe that it should be phased out into private plans.

You're like the type of voter the Republicans dream of.

The one who will blindly support and follow their economic policies by convincing you that the alternative is "socialist" or "for lazy welfare leeches."

The one that will vote Republican even as they  you over bad and tell you it's your fault.

[eric82oslo]

You see, I agree with you that Social Security is socialism. That's why I believe that it should be phased out into private plans.

Well I'm a Jeb Bush voter myself, but this sounds like almost as immature teenage talk as Ted Cruz would come down to.

[All Along The Watchtower]

This thread....

 

[WVdemocrat]

You see, I agree with you that Social Security is socialism. That's why I believe that it should be phased out into private plans.

Well I'm a Jeb Bush voter myself, but this sounds like almost as immature teenage talk as Ted Cruz would come down to.

You are a Jeb Bush voter....why exactly?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Slander and/or Libel]

My views on welfare can be summed up as "Government has the responsibility to provide what individual citizens cannot do for themselves".

Let's isolate this bit and pick it apart a bit.

So you believe government has the responsibility to provide what citizens cannot do for themselves. Presumably this means something like a minimum standard of living. So government, through tax revenues, has the responsibility to bring up citizens who fall below that minimum to that minimum (I assume you'd put a caveat on there that they'd have to be willing to work, not just lazy, etc. Not operative for this discussion).

Take, then, the example of a person working a minimum wage job at Walmart. You're saying it's the government's job to provide for that individual the difference between what he makes and what we've decided to define as the minimum standard of living. That difference is to be made up out of tax revenues, distributed over the whole tax base, presumably. But in the meantime, the beneficiary is the employer, who gets to pocket the difference between what they pay the employee and the minimum standard of living. The government basically agrees to subsidize wages so that low-wage employers don't have to worry at all about providing their workers a living wage.

You might argue that in a free market, those workers' wages have been determined by the market and who are we to impose controls on wages? But the implicit backstop of wage support for low wage workers acts as a distortion. Low wage employers know it's there.

[pbrower2a]

Good. Socialism has no place in America, or anywhere for that matter.

What makes you say that?

Because socialism takes away economic freedom and makes people dependent on the government, does not work and ruins the economies of nations where it is tried, serves as a prelude to communism, and is overall an evil ideology.

Plutocracy also guts freedom and prosperity among working people with the objective of allowing economic elites to take everything not needed for an animal level of survival.

I have seen the future and it works. It is called Scandinavia.

[Vega]

You see, I agree with you that Social Security is socialism. That's why I believe that it should be phased out into private plans.

Well I'm a Jeb Bush voter myself, but this sounds like almost as immature teenage talk as Ted Cruz would come down to.

Right.

[Clark Kent]

My views on welfare can be summed up as "Government has the responsibility to provide what individual citizens cannot do for themselves".

Let's isolate this bit and pick it apart a bit.

So you believe government has the responsibility to provide what citizens cannot do for themselves. Presumably this means something like a minimum standard of living. So government, through tax revenues, has the responsibility to bring up citizens who fall below that minimum to that minimum (I assume you'd put a caveat on there that they'd have to be willing to work, not just lazy, etc. Not operative for this discussion).

Take, then, the example of a person working a minimum wage job at Walmart. You're saying it's the government's job to provide for that individual the difference between what he makes and what we've decided to define as the minimum standard of living. That difference is to be made up out of tax revenues, distributed over the whole tax base, presumably. But in the meantime, the beneficiary is the employer, who gets to pocket the difference between what they pay the employee and the minimum standard of living. The government basically agrees to subsidize wages so that low-wage employers don't have to worry at all about providing their workers a living wage.

You might argue that in a free market, those workers' wages have been determined by the market and who are we to impose controls on wages? But the implicit backstop of wage support for low wage workers acts as a distortion. Low wage employers know it's there.

The government has a responsibility to make sure that people don't die. Food stamps, subsidized healthcare for the poor, and homeless shelters can be accepted. Single payer health care and "free money" are not. I do support a slight increase in the federal minimum wage, as long as it's accompanied by a tax cut.

[Beet]

Social Security isn't socialism, it's a re-distributive program. Socialism means public ownership of the means of production, e.g., ownership by the workers or the government of society's assets.

[World politics is up Schmitt creek]

I wonder if ClarkKent knows that Golden Age Superman was a New Dealer.

[Clark Kent]

I wonder if ClarkKent knows that Golden Age Superman was a New Dealer.

I know that. I also know that Ronald Reagan started as a New Dealer. People change.

[Slander and/or Libel]

Superman is not a real person.

[RFayette]

I wonder if ClarkKent knows that Golden Age Superman was a New Dealer.

And plenty of liberals love Disney, even though Walt Disney's views were, eh.............

I don't think anyone really takes political views into account when it comes to cartoon preferences.