Jump to content

Why are the Democrats considered socialists?


Recommended Posts

Why are the Democrats considered socialists? Obviously, Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist, but he was an independent for years until he decided to run for the presidency. Obamacare isn't really universal health care considering the fact that there are millions of uninsured Americans. Universal would mean that everyone has coverage. Further Obamacare forces Americans to buy their own health care. It is not given to Americans for free like the typical universal health care country. The poorest get Obamacare for free, but that doesn't change anything because they already had free health care through Medicaid before Obamacare. More people qualify for Medicaid since the rules have been changed, so with Obamacare there has been an expansion of Medicaid, but that doesn't mean that Obamacare is suddenly universal health care. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders ran in the primary promising to bring true universal health care to America. That is proof enough that Obamacare is not this gigantic government give-away. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are stressing out by the large increases in health insurance premiums that they are facing, and that is because Obamacare has been an absolute failure in fixing the system and lowering health care premiums like Obama said it would. Hillary Clinton is in opposition to Bernie's universal health care plan, and Hillary said pretty clearly that America is not Denmark in response to Bernie's ideas. With such a strong contrast between Hillary and Bernie, why are they lumped together? Obviously, the definition of socialism is what matters. Originally communism and socialism meant the same entering the 19th century, where it was a system whereby everyone had a completely equal piece of the pie. No rich people allowed. Then, a distinction happened between the two terms. The end result was the same where everyone shares the wealth equally, but how to get there is what distinguished the two terms. Communism meant armed struggle to get there while socialism meant you got there peacefully. Nowadays many refer to socialism as any redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. But by that standard, America has been a socialist country for many decades since the rich have been paying for the education of poor schoolchildren. What it comes down to is that historically, the Democrats will say just about anything to get votes, and this means that they constantly do not live up to what they preach when they are running for office. See TheDemocratPartyIsAFraud.com for many, many examples of this. Thus, the reality is that while there are some who think like Bernie in the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party's embrace of Obamacare in opposition to the true universal health care Bernie proposed demonstrates that the labeling of the Democrat Party as a socialist party is wrong. What justification is there for labeling the Democrat Party as a socialist party at this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"completely equal piece of the pie." hahahahahahaaa. Do a little research and you will find that in the "workers paradise" the pie is never divided equally. Russian apparatchiks had dachas on the Black Sea and the list of party perks was endless. Even the dumb-ass Russians woke up. Another part of life in paradise was a lack of food. Find photos of Russian supermarkets. Universal health care was a lack of facilities, doctors, drugs and even clean sheets for DOPES LIKE YOU. Party bosses received the best of medical care. With your inferior health care you had a complete denial of any freedoms whatsoever. Commie bastards told useful idiots in the west the Berlin Wall was erected to keep the west from rushing into the paradise. hahahaha. Free inferior care. hahaha. How do socialists explain Venezuela? The healthcare there must be the best.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For sure communism/socialism is a total failure of an idea/economic theory. It takes away individual incentives to excel, making capitalism the clear and only way for society to proceed if progress is a goal, which it should be, unless you want to throw away your computer, TV, and all the technology that you have that has been developed through capitalism. That brief reasoning is only 1 aspect of why communism/socialism is a total failure. Another reason is that the rights of the citizens are taken away, and freedom is gone. You don't even have the freedom to leave the country because the government owns you like a slave. Consider the baseball players that have escaped communist Cuba. It was very difficult, and they had to rely upon criminals for their escape who expected a significant cut of their signing bonuses. Another reason is that communism is a dismal failure in practice as well. China had great difficulties feeding their own people until they adopted capitalist reforms in the 1970s. Today there are over a million millionaires in China and and many billionaires as well. Yet the common serfs of China have little to no rights. Thus, communism/socialism never reaches the goal of everyone getting an equal share of the pie. Mankind is too corrupt and greedy for that to take place, so it's totally foolish to even try. More than that, it's a disaster for humanity to even try. Thus China's communist ideals turned into a deformed creature from the black lagoon where there is a millionaire and billionaire class, and the people lost their rights at the same time with dismal prospects of gaining them back. Communism/socialism has also been guilty of the widespread genocide of tens of millions of their own countrymen, because of the authoritarian and heartless nature of communist regimes. Communism/socialism does not work PERIOD. My point in my post was that Bernie was the closest America had to bringing true universal health care to America, and Hillary with all the DNC (and her superdelegates) soundly defeated it and rejected Bernie's vision of European-style universal health care in America. My question therefore, was why should the Democrat Party be considered socialist since they so soundly defeated and rejected European-style universal healthcare. I personally support Donald Trump's health care plan for eliminating Obamacare (which is an absolute disaster with soaring and unaffordable premiums for millions of Americans). I personally support Donald Trump's health care plan to bring capitalist reforms to the American health care system (which are desperately needed). Prior to Obamacare, we didn't actually have true capitalism working properly in our health care system. Capitalism leads to a situation where a person looks at competing products in the marketplace and picks the best combination of quality and cost that he can find, and that drives competition so that we get better products for lower prices as companies compete for your dollars. Instead, the American system was set up so that when someone was sick or injured, or needed surgery, he wasn't looking around at prices at all, because insurance was covering it. This led to a situation where European universal health care systems have been spending about 1/2 per person or even less than the American system spends, and everyone is covered over there. Not to mention they are living longer. Health care nowadays is vital to gaining extra years at the end of one's life. Yet, European universal health care countries generally have a longer life expectancy while spending about half as much as Americans are spending. It should be the other way around, because capitalism is a far superior system that delivers better quality products for less of a price than government-controlled markets. Again, Trump's reforms can rectify the matter, and I support them. Not to mention Republican Health Savings Accounts are a great idea, and I have been a supporter of them since they came into fashion about a decade ago. With your own personal account, with your own hard dollars that you spend, you now shop around for the best price / best quality health care you can find. That is capitalism, and that is what can drive health care costs down in this country. You clearly made all kinds of false assumptions about me from reading my post, and you even called me a "DOPE". I advise you to try not to make false assumptions about people in the future because then you have false things in your head that you are believing, and the truth is not in there. Again, my point was that because Hillary and the DNC so soundly rejected Bernie's European-style universal health care, what justifies calling them socialist at this point. Your response did not justify it, but perhaps you can retry. I am open ears. Attitudes and responses like yours are probably why guys like Paul Ryan and others in the GOP have failed to rally around Trump like they should have. Innocent until proven guilty is an essential moral value that is lacking in America right now. Trump is still in a great position to win this, despite extreme establishment opposition from both sides of the aisle. Trump has given a list of Supreme Court choices for everyone to see beforehand, and has proposed a terrific solution to the health care mess America has been in (from the days even before Obamacare became the law of the land which has made things far, far worse).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the Democrats considered socialists? Obviously, Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist, but he was an independent for years until he decided to run for the presidency. Obamacare isn't really universal health care considering the fact that there are millions of uninsured Americans. Universal would mean that everyone has coverage. Further Obamacare forces Americans to buy their own health care. It is not given to Americans for free like the typical universal health care country. The poorest get Obamacare for free, but that doesn't change anything because they already had free health care through Medicaid before Obamacare. More people qualify for Medicaid since the rules have been changed, so with Obamacare there has been an expansion of Medicaid, but that doesn't mean that Obamacare is suddenly universal health care. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders ran in the primary promising to bring true universal health care to America. That is proof enough that Obamacare is not this gigantic government give-away. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are stressing out by the large increases in health insurance premiums that they are facing, and that is because Obamacare has been an absolute failure in fixing the system and lowering health care premiums like Obama said it would. Hillary Clinton is in opposition to Bernie's universal health care plan, and Hillary said pretty clearly that America is not Denmark in response to Bernie's ideas. With such a strong contrast between Hillary and Bernie, why are they lumped together? Obviously, the definition of socialism is what matters. Originally communism and socialism meant the same entering the 19th century, where it was a system whereby everyone had a completely equal piece of the pie. No rich people allowed. Then, a distinction happened between the two terms. The end result was the same where everyone shares the wealth equally, but how to get there is what distinguished the two terms. Communism meant armed struggle to get there while socialism meant you got there peacefully. Nowadays many refer to socialism as any redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. But by that standard, America has been a socialist country for many decades since the rich have been paying for the education of poor schoolchildren. What it comes down to is that historically, the Democrats will say just about anything to get votes, and this means that they constantly do not live up to what they preach when they are running for office. See TheDemocratPartyIsAFraud.com for many, many examples of this. Thus, the reality is that while there are some who think like Bernie in the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party's embrace of Obamacare in opposition to the true universal health care Bernie proposed demonstrates that the labeling of the Democrat Party as a socialist party is wrong. What justification is there for labeling the Democrat Party as a socialist party at this point?

Some factual errors here. Obamacare was not for the poor, it covers workers who can't get health insurance and/or who's employers don't offer it, which these days is about all of them, including govt jobs like the schoo board. If you're paying $300 a month for insurance, your employer isn't offering health insurance.

Also if you have diabetes you couldn't get health insurance at any price before, now you can.

Everyone who's on OCare is now paying much less for their coverage, and rates will go down.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some factual errors here. Obamacare was not for the poor, it covers workers who can't get health insurance and/or who's employers don't offer it, which these days is about all of them, including govt jobs like the schoo board. If you're paying $300 a month for insurance, your employer isn't offering health insurance.

Also if you have diabetes you couldn't get health insurance at any price before, now you can.

Everyone who's on OCare is now paying much less for their coverage, and rates will go down.

lol... all the gains in coverage dropped people on Medicare and Medicaid, where they can't get coverage.

20% of doctors have left Obamacare.

35% of people with Obamacare, don't go to the doctor because they can't afford the bill.

 

You're a fucking fool if you think "insurance" = "healthcare".

 

Everyone who is on Obamacare is now paying much more for their coverage and rates are going up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the Democrats considered socialists? Obviously, Bernie Sanders is a self-described socialist, but he was an independent for years until he decided to run for the presidency. Obamacare isn't really universal health care considering the fact that there are millions of uninsured Americans. Universal would mean that everyone has coverage. Further Obamacare forces Americans to buy their own health care. It is not given to Americans for free like the typical universal health care country. The poorest get Obamacare for free, but that doesn't change anything because they already had free health care through Medicaid before Obamacare. More people qualify for Medicaid since the rules have been changed, so with Obamacare there has been an expansion of Medicaid, but that doesn't mean that Obamacare is suddenly universal health care. Furthermore, Bernie Sanders ran in the primary promising to bring true universal health care to America. That is proof enough that Obamacare is not this gigantic government give-away. As a matter of fact, millions of Americans are stressing out by the large increases in health insurance premiums that they are facing, and that is because Obamacare has been an absolute failure in fixing the system and lowering health care premiums like Obama said it would. Hillary Clinton is in opposition to Bernie's universal health care plan, and Hillary said pretty clearly that America is not Denmark in response to Bernie's ideas. With such a strong contrast between Hillary and Bernie, why are they lumped together? Obviously, the definition of socialism is what matters. Originally communism and socialism meant the same entering the 19th century, where it was a system whereby everyone had a completely equal piece of the pie. No rich people allowed. Then, a distinction happened between the two terms. The end result was the same where everyone shares the wealth equally, but how to get there is what distinguished the two terms. Communism meant armed struggle to get there while socialism meant you got there peacefully. Nowadays many refer to socialism as any redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. But by that standard, America has been a socialist country for many decades since the rich have been paying for the education of poor schoolchildren. What it comes down to is that historically, the Democrats will say just about anything to get votes, and this means that they constantly do not live up to what they preach when they are running for office. See TheDemocratPartyIsAFraud.com for many, many examples of this. Thus, the reality is that while there are some who think like Bernie in the Democrat Party, the Democrat Party's embrace of Obamacare in opposition to the true universal health care Bernie proposed demonstrates that the labeling of the Democrat Party as a socialist party is wrong. What justification is there for labeling the Democrat Party as a socialist party at this point?

Simple.

 

They are considered socialists because they believe the government should regulate and control most forms of private industry.

 

Pretty textbook definition honestly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kfools, on 02 November 2016 - 07:20 PM, said: "Simple. They are considered socialists because they believe the government should regulate and control most forms of private industry. Pretty textbook definition honestly."

 

Yet, here is the textbook definition of socialism from the online Merriam Webster Dictionary. They first give a simple definition and then a full definition. Here is the simple definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"Simple definition of socialism - a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"

 

Here is the first 2 listings from the full definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"Full definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"

 

Your 'textbook definition' is lacking a very important aspect of socialism, and that is the governmental ownership of the major industries or means of production. Again, with the Democrat Party so soundly rejecting Bernie and his European-style universal health care, why should the Democrat Party be considered a socialist party anymore? European-style universal health care is a true government give-away, unlike Obamacare where the government forces citizens, who are able, to buy their own health insurance from health insurance companies that are not owned by the state. Furthermore, many hospitals, cancer centers, health care clinics, and other medical providers and suppliers are loaded with wealthy capitalists making a killing off the system. A recent NYT article stated that the average gastroenterologist makes about $400,000 per year, and a number of them have invested in their own GI clinics with other doctors, and when they invest and run their own clinics like that, a gastroenterologist makes over $1,000,000 per year on average. That is straightforward capitalism. Obamacare did not take capitalism out of the American health care system. Like I stated in a previous post, the problem is that those who need health care do not shop around because insurance covers them, and that is where the very important and vital aspects of capitalism have been missing in American health care for decades before Obamacare. Trump's promotion of health savings accounts is a vital mechanism to drive down health care costs, as is his plan to eliminate state lines for insurance companies which may trigger some competition in the insurance industry.

 

A final point is that just because Democrats systematically overregulate and overtax everything, does not mean that they do so because they have good intentions or because they are looking to establish governmental ownership of the means of production in society. See http://TheDemocratPartyIsAFraud.com where it is demonstrated very clearly what happens when the Democrat Party overregulates and overtaxes everything, especially the section 'Washington D.C. becomes a new Tammany Hall'. The ones who run the party generally don't have good intentions when they do this. Special interest legislation or outright bribery (sometimes in the form of campaign funding) abounds to cut through the regulatory nightmares that are set up, and tax breaks and corporate welfare are given out in return for large campaign contributions. Sometimes non-governmental entities like the Mafia end up holding the keys to cutting through thickets of governmental overregulation. An example of that has been the New York City construction industry. The Democrat Party has been dominated by a bunch of wealthy crooks and politician/crooks. There are some well-meaning politicians who are blind to the corruption that drives the party. Pay to play has been their way going back for many decades. Total corruption and the plundering of America is what the Democrat Party is all about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

kfools, on 02 November 2016 - 07:20 PM, said: "Simple. They are considered socialists because they believe the government should regulate and control most forms of private industry. Pretty textbook definition honestly."

 

Yet, here is the textbook definition of socialism from the online Merriam Webster Dictionary. They first give a simple definition and then a full definition. Here is the simple definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"Simple definition of socialism - a way of organizing a society in which major industries are owned and controlled by the government rather than by individual people and companies"

 

Here is the first 2 listings from the full definition:

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

"Full definition of socialism

1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state"

 

Your 'textbook definition' is lacking a very important aspect of socialism, and that is the governmental ownership of the major industries or means of production. Again, with the Democrat Party so soundly rejecting Bernie and his European-style universal health care, why should the Democrat Party be considered a socialist party anymore? European-style universal health care is a true government give-away, unlike Obamacare where the government forces citizens, who are able, to buy their own health insurance from health insurance companies that are not owned by the state. Furthermore, many hospitals, cancer centers, health care clinics, and other medical providers and suppliers are loaded with wealthy capitalists making a killing off the system. A recent NYT article stated that the average gastroenterologist makes about $400,000 per year, and a number of them have invested in their own GI clinics with other doctors, and when they invest and run their own clinics like that, a gastroenterologist makes over $1,000,000 per year on average. That is straightforward capitalism. Obamacare did not take capitalism out of the American health care system. Like I stated in a previous post, the problem is that those who need health care do not shop around because insurance covers them, and that is where the very important and vital aspects of capitalism have been missing in American health care for decades before Obamacare. Trump's promotion of health savings accounts is a vital mechanism to drive down health care costs, as is his plan to eliminate state lines for insurance companies which may trigger some competition in the insurance industry.

 

A final point is that just because Democrats systematically overregulate and overtax everything, does not mean that they do so because they have good intentions or because they are looking to establish governmental ownership of the means of production in society. See http://TheDemocratPartyIsAFraud.com where it is demonstrated very clearly what happens when the Democrat Party overregulates and overtaxes everything, especially the section 'Washington D.C. becomes a new Tammany Hall'. The ones who run the party generally don't have good intentions when they do this. Special interest legislation or outright bribery (sometimes in the form of campaign funding) abounds to cut through the regulatory nightmares that are set up, and tax breaks and corporate welfare are given out in return for large campaign contributions. Sometimes non-governmental entities like the Mafia end up holding the keys to cutting through thickets of governmental overregulation. An example of that has been the New York City construction industry. The Democrat Party has been dominated by a bunch of wealthy crooks and politician/crooks. There are some well-meaning politicians who are blind to the corruption that drives the party. Pay to play has been their way going back for many decades. Total corruption and the plundering of America is what the Democrat Party is all about.

"Your 'textbook definition' is lacking a very important aspect of socialism, and that is the governmental ownership of the major industries or means of production."-True True True

 

No, my textbook definition of socialism is lacking nothing because it is a textbook definition of socialism....and the answer to your question.

 

The answer very obviously being...they are called socialists because by the very definition of their policies they are textbook socialists.

 

Why are you finding this confusing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...