I'm so angry with the U.S. and Chinese governments right now!

T

Trell

Senior Audioholic
No, she's a plain-old socialist. The working class and poor are noble, successful people are all greedy and selfish. Corporations are evil. People who take responsibility for their lives and succeed are just lucky or privileged, and everyone who doesn't succeed is there because of some structural inequity. In addition to being in the classic definition of bigotry, someone who is intolerant of opinions different than their own, she appears to discriminate against old people, and especially older men.

But this now famous quote from her sums up my lack of admiration for her sincerity or her intellect:

“An entire generation, which is now becoming one of the largest electorates in America, came of age and never saw American prosperity,” she says. “I have never seen that, or experienced it, really, in my adult life.”

What a fool.
I'm sorry, but I don't share your opinion that AOC is a socialist, and your caricature of her is not convincing.

After unblocking Facebook I saw that the interview with AOC was just about one minute long. Do you have a link to the complete interview?
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
Socialism is where the government provides services to all, irrespective of whether they contribute."
Like the fire department, police, paved roads, public schools, and lots of other things? Granted, quite a lot on that list are things people pay into so they don't fit your definition (which I somewhat agree with). If you pay into a program (or your employer does) and you get money back then I don't think that's as much of a social program as something like the fire department or library.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Not necessarily true depending on its viewed "Social Security and Medicare are two separate programs administered by the government, but funded by individuals and their employers. The government does not contribute any funds into the programs. In order to qualify for each of these programs an individual must have worked and contributed for a minimum amount of terms. If one qualifies for Social Security then you automatically qualify for Medicare. Note the term qualify.

Socialism is where the government provides services to all, irrespective of whether they contribute."
I don't know if you're deliberately avoiding my central point, which is that there are programs partially/fully funded and administered by various levels of government in the USA, as well as other western countries. These programs would be considered "socialist".
According to Wikipedia:
Medicare is partially funded by the US Treasury.
Supplemental Security Income is administered through the Social Security Administration and funded by the US Treasury.

Public Schools, public parks, public roads, National Weather Service...all publicly funded for the good of all. I'm not inclined to dig that deep, but there probably isn't a nation on this planet that doesn't incorporate some publicly funded services - certainly not within the OECD. The modern "welfare state" is a fact of life. The degree of socialism practiced within these countries may vary, but it isn't a yes/no question, as to whether a country is socialist or not.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Public Schools, public parks, public roads, National Weather Service...all publicly funded for the good of all. I'm not inclined to dig that deep, but there probably isn't a nation on this planet that doesn't incorporate some publicly funded services - certainly not within the OECD. The modern "welfare state" is a fact of life. The degree of socialism practiced within these countries may vary, but it isn't a yes/no question, as to whether a country is socialist or not.
Let's not confuse common infrastructure and services best done at the government level with the notion of purposeful redistribution of wealth to benefit supposedly under-privileged groups in society. You can always recognize this agenda by certain keywords like "workers" or "the people". (Search AOC and "the people" and see what you get.). And the answer is always to tax people who aren't paying their "fair share", whatever that is, funnel the money through government and create massive bureaucracies, and increase the power and control over society of the politicians in office. Personally, I see this sort of agenda as the ultimate form of greed. (No one can have more than I have.)
 
Last edited:
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
I'm sorry, but I don't share your opinion that AOC is a socialist, and your caricature of her is not convincing.

After unblocking Facebook I saw that the interview with AOC was just about one minute long. Do you have a link to the complete interview?
I didn't keep the link, and you are entitled to whatever opinions you care to have. I'll just disagree, and put your opinion into perspective.
 
A

awdio

Audioholic Intern
Truly, you are a Canadian. You show a genuine concern about the well-being of your fellow countrymen, and you ended your political rant with an apology. No American would do either. Just be happy you are in Canada where Trump can only do so much harm. Here in the USA the harm done from his recklessness knows no bounds. The damage he has done and is doing to the credibility of this country is irreparable.
Truly, you are a Canadian. You show a genuine concern about the well-being of your fellow countrymen, and you ended your political rant with an apology. No American would do either. Just be happy you are in Canada where Trump can only do so much harm. Here in the USA the harm done from his recklessness knows no bounds. The damage he has done and is doing to the credibility of this country is irreparable.
Truly, you are a Canadian. You show a genuine concern about the well-being of your fellow countrymen, and you ended your political rant with an apology. No American would do either. Just be happy you are in Canada where Trump can only do so much harm. Here in the USA the harm done from his recklessness knows no bounds. The damage he has done and is doing to the credibility of this country is irreparable.
Damage to the credibility to the country is irreparable? I'd say the problem is you have bumped your head one too many times. With that last sentence you have shown that you know nothing of the distant and recent history of the country and you are a political bumpkin.
 
Wayde Robson

Wayde Robson

Audioholics Anchorman
On definitions of "socialism"... I think any country that transfers wealth from production (has tax) and uses it for public services has a sliver of "socialism". That these tax-funded public works can help the economy is textbook Keynesianism. It's at least socialist-adjacent. All countries in the first world have some of this, even the US.

Not to open up the health care debate, being Canadian, I'm happy with our system of federal mandate to provide it, but letting the Provinces figure out how.

But I am sympathetic to the arguments of my "right-wing" American friends. They would pose the question, should health care be a "right"? In the same sense that free expression is a right. I'm not sure.

The reason I'm not sure is... as technology improves, health care seem to get more and more expensive. Like a reverse-silicon transistor effect. What happens if the technology existed to extend the life of any person, no matter how sick, but at a cost of $1-million per-day? We could keep everyone alive, but at a cost that would quickly bankrupt any nation?

I think before health care becomes a "right", something needs to change in how cost is sorted out. I know drug patents, genome patents are a hot issue that I know very little about. But, something would have to change to reduce the long-term costs for the most vital health care. I'm not sure why health care procedures don't reduce in cost over time, like last generation's console gaming system does.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Let's not confuse common infrastructure and services best done at the government level with the notion of purposeful redistribution of wealth to benefit supposedly under-privileged groups in society. You can always recognize this agenda by certain keywords like "workers" or "the people". (Search AOC and "the people" and see what you get.). And the answer is always to tax people who aren't paying their "fair share", whatever that is, funnel the money through government and create massive bureaucracies, and increase the power and control over society of the politicians in office. Personally, I see sort of agenda as the ultimate form of greed. (No one can have more than I have.)
If we disregard common infrastructure and services, there are still extant programs that re-distribute wealth in your country and mine. I repeat, once more, that my central point is that (within the OECD, at least), there are NO fully socialist or capitalist countries. I realise that Denmark is considered to be more socialist than the USA, but that doesn't mean socialism isn't a "thing" in the USA. So, it's not like AOC is advocating establishing something that doesn't exist, although she certainly wants to increase its footprint - for good or ill.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
If we disregard common infrastructure and services, there are still extant programs that re-distribute wealth in your country and mine. I repeat, once more, that my central point is that (within the OECD, at least),there are NO fully socialist or capitalist countries. I realise that Denmark is considered to be more socialist than the USA, but that doesn't mean socialism isn't a "thing" in the USA. So, it's not like AOC is advocating establishing something that doesn't exist, although she certainly wants to increase its footprint - for good or ill.
I never said that the US doesn't have socialist programs; certainly Medicaid and SNAP are in the category, but increasing the footprint of socialist entitlement programs, like her mentor Bernie Sanders advocates, is what why I label her a socialist. I think the bottom line reason for my disdain for that agenda is the (IMO dangerous and immoral) message that lack of success and independence is more noble than achieving those objectives, and that those who do achieve success should pay whatever is necessary to subsidize those who don't. And now we want to extend that philosophy in the US to those who simply make stupid decisions, like taking out huge student loans to be trained in professions with salaries that can't possibly support the loan payments.
 
panteragstk

panteragstk

Audioholic Ninja
Let's not confuse common infrastructure and services best done at the government level with the notion of purposeful redistribution of wealth to benefit supposedly under-privileged groups in society. You can always recognize this agenda by certain keywords like "workers" or "the people". (Search AOC and "the people" and see what you get.). And the answer is always to tax people who aren't paying their "fair share", whatever that is, funnel the money through government and create massive bureaucracies, and increase the power and control over society of the politicians in office. Personally, I see sort of agenda as the ultimate form of greed. (No one can have more than I have.)
I agree with you on this. No reason to see the wealthy as "bad" and poor as "good". While some people are "poor" by choice (in the sense that they don't have much money and are totally fine with it) and some are "poor" by circumstances that are out of their control (spouse gets sick and can't work, single income doesn't cut it) I do think programs should exist to help people that can't make it on their own.

Having said that, those programs should be VERY strict and people in them should be monitored so they aren't able to take advantage of them. No reason people should choose to not work because getting a job would screw up their benefits. At the same time those programs can punish people that actually do want to work, but still need help. Wife had an employee that had to quit to qualify for benefits. That's not right.

I worked in the IT dept of the HHSC (health and human services commission) here in TX years ago, and one thing that floored me was how different some people's attitudes were when it came to welfare. On one hand there were the "thank you very much, this will help us get back on our fee" group and the other that somehow feel entitled to it. I was working on a computer at the front window and some dude came up to me all pissed off saying "how come I didn't get as much money as my friend?" I politely closed the window and told him I wasn't who he needed to talk to. What I wanted to say was "I'm sorry. Are you complaining about the free money you never have to pay back?" Those type of people are the problem IMHO. I would imagine that they are the target audience (the people as you said) for some of these "not socialist" politicians.
 
O

Out-Of-Phase

Audioholic Chief
I'm sorry, but I don't share your opinion that AOC is a socialist, and your caricature of her is not convincing.

After unblocking Facebook I saw that the interview with AOC was just about one minute long. Do you have a link to the complete interview?
Regarding her political affiliations, do your research a little more. She is a public figure, there is a ton of information on her out there.
 
P

pewternhrata

Senior Audioholic
I don't know if you're deliberately avoiding my central point, which is that there are programs partially/fully funded and administered by various levels of government in the USA, as well as other western countries. These programs would be considered "socialist".
According to Wikipedia:
Medicare is partially funded by the US Treasury.
Supplemental Security Income is administered through the Social Security Administration and funded by the US Treasury.

Public Schools, public parks, public roads, National Weather Service...all publicly funded for the good of all. I'm not inclined to dig that deep, but there probably isn't a nation on this planet that doesn't incorporate some publicly funded services - certainly not within the OECD. The modern "welfare state" is a fact of life. The degree of socialism practiced within these countries may vary, but it isn't a yes/no question, as to whether a country is socialist or not.
Wasnt trying to avoid, I get it. In regards to public services (legitimate question) do you feel those are truly socialist given that certain areas are better funded by tax dollars (poor districts vs wealthy) if it were truly socialist, wouldn't all districts receive equal funding?
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
I never said that the US doesn't have socialist programs; certainly Medicaid and SNAP are in the category, but increasing the footprint of socialist entitlement programs, like her mentor Bernie Sanders advocates, is what why I label her a socialist. I think the bottom line reason for my disdain for that agenda is the (IMO dangerous and immoral) message that lack of success and independence is more noble than achieving those objectives, and that those who do achieve success should pay whatever is necessary to subsidize those who don't. And now we want to extend that philosophy in the US to those who simply make stupid decisions, like taking out huge student loans to be trained in professions with salaries that can't possibly support the loan payments.
No, you didn't. I don't think I implied that either, but if that's how you understood it, sorry about that.

It's certainly difficult to determine who/what is worthy of public financial support. Everyone has his own philosophy on it.
 
P

pewternhrata

Senior Audioholic
Also keep in mind, in the US, welfare programs are not designed to be handouts or a way of life/living, they are designed to temporarily assist. There are qualifications that need to be met in order to determine eligibility. Under socialism, there are no eligibility requirements.
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Also keep in mind, in the US, welfare programs are not designed to be handouts or a way of life/living, they are designed to temporarily assist. There are qualifications that need to be met in order to determine eligibility. Under socialism, there are no eligibility requirements.
Hmmm... just doing a few searches... I'm not sure this is the case. In France, for example, which has a reputation for an expensive welfare state, some benefits are means-tested, some aren't. In the US, some are and some aren't. Medicaid is means-tested, but Medicare isn't. Social Security isn't means-tested either, so even billionaires get benefits if they paid into the system and apply. SSI is means-tested.
 
P

pewternhrata

Senior Audioholic
Hmmm... just doing a few searches... I'm not sure this is the case. In France, for example, which has a reputation for an expensive welfare state, some benefits are means-tested, some aren't. In the US, some are and some aren't. Medicaid is means-tested, but Medicare isn't. Social Security isn't means-tested either, so even billionaires get benefits if they paid into the system and apply. SSI is means-tested.
I can see medicare as a socialist program, as that money is directly redistributed to anyone of eligible age (or other requirements) I still cant view social security as those benefits are distributed by a calculation of age and income (in very short) over the 'working years'. Someone who earned six figures will receive more than someone who's earned 5 figures. Ss is more of a forced retirement plan.

Interested to see opinions on classifying unemployment benefits.

What intrigues me most is the varying views on what can or should be considered socialist benefits or handouts. It seems to do a lot more on personal opinion and views, maybe poor example; but habits vs addiction.
 
GO-NAD!

GO-NAD!

Audioholic Ninja
Wasnt trying to avoid, I get it. In regards to public services (legitimate question) do you feel those are truly socialist given that certain areas are better funded by tax dollars (poor districts vs wealthy) if it were truly socialist, wouldn't all districts receive equal funding?
Good question - not sure if I can answer that. What qualifies as "socialist" isn't always clear and is often in the eye of the beholder.

Although I'm sure it varies from location to location, with regard to public services, they should be funded on a need basis, which will vary. But, you rarely see wealthy areas being short changed. They certainly have more political clout than poorer ones.
 
T

Trell

Senior Audioholic
Also keep in mind, in the US, welfare programs are not designed to be handouts or a way of life/living, they are designed to temporarily assist. There are qualifications that need to be met in order to determine eligibility. Under socialism, there are no eligibility requirements.
In Nordic countries there are eligibility requirements, means testing, as well as co--payment for some services, like health care and prescription medicines. To call those countries socialist, though, is a bit strange as their economy is based upon free market capitalism.
 
T

Trell

Senior Audioholic
...
What intrigues me most is the varying views on what can or should be considered socialist benefits or handouts. It seems to do a lot more on personal opinion and views, maybe poor example; but habits vs addiction.
Perhaps I go out on a limb when I think that many Americans have a tendency to brand any public expenditure or tax they don't like as socialism, and that makes it hard it have any sensible and rational discussions.

Case in point is the US health care system where Obamacare is derided as socialist and worse, but has been said to be Romneycare across state lines, which again has it's origins in conservative thinking in the Clinton era.

Here is an article from 2012 with an interesting point: https://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/15/health/policy/health-care-mandate-was-first-backed-by-conservatives.html

"The concept that people should be required to buy health coverage was fleshed out more than two decades ago by a number of conservative economists, embraced by scholars at conservative research groups, including the Heritage Foundation and the American Enterprise Institute, and championed, for a time, by Republicans in the Senate."​
 
Irvrobinson

Irvrobinson

Audioholic Spartan
Perhaps I go out on a limb when I think that many Americans have a tendency to brand any public expenditure or tax they don't like as socialism, and that makes it hard it have any sensible and rational discussions.
You might be correct, Trell, some of us brand any proposal for income redistribution and giveaways without accountability (like paying off all student loans, making all college education free, "fair share" discussions, and universal basic income programs) as socialist. Frankly, I don't care what you call programs like that, I think they're a really bad idea, and they lead to unsustainable welfare states that result in overall national decline and dependent populations. I don't care how many derogatory names you call me, I still believe that most adults must take personal responsibility for their own lives, and if that means they have a lower standard of living because they're not as productive as other people, so be it. And what really turns me off is that the greediest, most power-hungry, most controlling people I've ever known are the ones advocating that someone else isn't paying their fair share, and they're the ones who need to take the money that's in "the wrong hands" and control it.

Interesting that you bring up the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare). Since its inception my wife and I have personally contributed tens of thousands of dollars to the incremental taxes passed to fund it, and we received no direct benefits at all. And due to a sudden large influx of new patients into the healthcare system, the ACA was almost certainly inflationary to healthcare costs. However, the ACA included two statutes that had nothing to do with funding the program or wealth redistribution that were so popular that even Republicans thought they were a good idea. One said insurance companies had to cover dependent adults under their parent's plans until they were 26 years old. We took advantage of that provision for four people, and while it raised our personal coverage costs it saved our extended family a considerable sum of money. The second statute was that health insurance providers couldn't take existing conditions into account for approving coverage or determining premiums. In reality both laws increase the overall cost of insurance for those that don't take advantage of them, but the broad support for them indicates that they were simply areas of customer demand that needed the regulation to force application. Much like safety features and pollution controls in motor vehicles.
 

newsletter
  • RBHsound.com
  • BlueJeansCable.com
  • SVS Sound Subwoofers
  • Experience the Martin Logan Montis
Top