AOC wants 70% tax on wealthy

Then what's the point of the correction? You call it socialism, and clearly people who are pushing back against socialism are using a different definition, because not many if any serious people argue that the government can't collect taxes, build roads, manage some form of welfare, etc... By using your own incorrect/inaccurate definition and insisting everyone accepts it, you're clouding an issue and bringing together a lot of very different ideas, some of which are more traditional socialism by definition, and some of them are just a believe that governments can collect taxes and perform public works.

And I don't know your motivations in doing that - maybe it's just so we can argue over semantics - but plenty of people hide behind those vague and open definitions in order to talk to both sides. To mainstream Americans "Hey look, socialism is only talking about stuff we're already doing, it's no big deal..." and to the progressive base: "We need to "invest" (read, take over or manage) certain or all segments of our economy to ensure they do what we (meaning the government/ruling class) want them to do."

 

LOL

McConnell says he will let the Green New Deal go to a vote in the Senate

Will Dems vote "absent?"

 

I gave my definition. And if in giving a statement has been taken as forcing acceptance of a definition on anyone, that was not the intent. Government programs paid for with tax dollars or other sources of income whereby where society at large receives a benefits or certain classifications of the people benefits, is socialism. We are not a total socialist nation under the general definition as I understand and observed, in various countries over the years which basically is more akin to an economic system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole, meaning the value made belongs to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners. That is not what we have here, but was in many former eastern block nations. Is that similar or the same as your definition?

 

Student: "I wish I could use my white privilege to make you teach me something useful."

 

Nancy Pelosi actually said one of the most insightful things about it. “The green dream or whatever they call it, nobody knows what it is, but they’re for it, right?”

This from the woman who said of Obamacare that, "we need to pass the bill in order to find out what is in it.”

 

The basic problem with AOC are her "moral imperatives" which require no financial cost-value analysis and the science requires no accountability for any particular outcome. What makes them matter is that she did something about them and signaled to everyone that she cares and anyone who opposes her or asks tough questions doesn't.

 

Socialism to me is evidenced by the growth of the federal (along with state and local) bureaucracy. This is what will choke the chicken. The money to support it and the unaccountable power it wields.

 

BevoJoe and ProdigalHorn, the discussion you are having is a complicated one. I can see merits in both perspectives too. Maybe I can offer a middle ground?

First, there are only 2 options to run your economy a market (capitalism) or government planning (socialism). You either use one or the other. For example, if your system uses prices and private property it is a market.

However, that doesn't mean that government provision of goods/services are capitalism. But it isn't really socialism either if a market exists. What can be said is that government provision of things are the necessary steps a state would need to implement in order to create socialism. It is either putting in place these elements gradually or all at once through revolution.

To that point the US has been on a slow march towards socialism since the Wilson administration. Medicare and Social Security itself isn't socialism. But it is putting more and more of your economy under the care of the government which brings the state closer to the point of making the switch. Or the state can just continue to intervene in the market operation to direct it for its own benefit. That by the way is Fascism or Corporatism. I actually think the US has more or less been a fascist economy starting with the New Deal.

 

Bystander, I agree that socialists are a bunch of jack-offs.

 

I think we have big problems when the government becomes a competitor in the marketplace and/or they play politics with regulations.

 

You just described the electrical power and distribution industry.

 

Some things need to be regulated. I'm in the natural gas business. We need to be regulated. We're not supposed to get rich on the back of poor people who need their heat and we sell a hazardous material. I'm not totally against some industries being heavily regulated. This could turn into a real back and forth. It is very difficult to draw a clear line in the sand.

I approve of government regulation in terms of safety; airlines, hazardous materials, food supply, drugs etc.... is that socialism? Maybe... is it for the general welfare of the people?

@Seattle Husker

I wanted to add to this that I don't like municipally owned utilities. I don't believe they provide a greater level of service quality or safety but they do enable the municipality to tax and fee their customers to death. They also are very arrogant concerning customer service. I work for a Fortune 500 utility and we have auditors/regulators all over us. It's very transparent and in my view, the best relationship for a utility is a public corporation that is highly regulated. We have to file reports with the EIA and FERC. Are financially reviewed/audited by PWC and The Railroad Commission of Texas. Our operations are regulated by the feds and the state for safety and they are always sending someone over. In short, it is the proper role of government concerning a "general welfare" product such as home delivered energy that is dangerous. The separation also eliminates the conflict of interest inherent with a municipally owned utility.

 

AO-R explains stuff on SNL

 

You don't NEED to be regulated by government. You need a system to monitor the safety of your company and competitors. I know for a fact that the natural gas industry already has GTI doing something similar for new technology. You just need something similar for standard operations.

Government regulation usually has 2 main results: less competition and stagnating technological development and much of it started out of the New Deal. Most of the regulations were unnecessary anyway (not speaking about natural gas though) because the they were written by "experts" who knew absolutely nothing about the industry they were regulating. The Supreme Court had to get involved it was so bad.

 

I'm discussing the proper role of government and the economy; specifically utilities. I have a hard time believe this middle-man (GTI) is better suited towards DEMANDING that natural gas (HAZMAT) providers are spending the money to track their systems, train their employees and maintain the documentation required to know what is going on below ground. I am cynical about corporate America and believe government power is absolutely necessary in some cases.

 

I don't think people in government are any better than people in corporations morally or at doing their jobs. In fact, I think the evidence proves it beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

In my experience at a utility, the government regulators have our complete attention. I have not experienced any morality issues or even agendas. They have a job to do and we know them well at this point. We know what they want to see and we have to prove ourselves with no BS. I think it works pretty well overall for the community we serve; much better than a municipally owned utility and a private utility hiring private regulators (or whatever GTI provides). You see, we're not paying the Railroad Commission to audit us. We'd have to bribe them wouldn't we? A private solution (maybe I'm not following your line of reasoning) is affected by their need for business.

 

For people that probably don't know how to use a hammer, this is very, very impressive.

 

AOC! She’s the gift that keeps on giving.

 

She's an idiot, but you have to give her credit. Thanks to the MSM fawning all over her since even before she was elected, she's become a rock star. As soon as she knocked off 10-term Democrat Joe Crowley (old white guy), she's been all over the news, offering her uninformed opinions on media everywhere. She's only one of 435 Congressmen, and a freshman to boot, but a day never goes by without hearing about her. She's the Kim Kardashian of politics. Even her own party wants to reign her in, but she's bigger than they are.

 

That is exactly what she is. You nailed it.

 

If she would stick to the gentrification issues inherent in Amazon's move or the revolving lobby doors with the government then she'd be downright likable on some level. But her extremism is offsetting some of the good things she brings up.

 

Bystander, there are private firms that do the same thing in other industries that do a good job of holding up safety and quality standards. Heck, customers can do a good job holding companies accountable too.

My main point isn't that the government doesn't do a good enough job in your industry. It is that the same service could be provided equally by private entities. There is no reason to idolize the government.

 

She might be dumber than Sheila Jackson Lee. Let that sink in.

 

AOC = left version of DJT

 

I'm willing to admit a blind spot if it can be proven. What has Trump forcefully advocated that you would consider as extreme as the green deal (remember; in ten years we are off of fossil fuels; the entire oil and gas industry is to be eliminated) or people being supported by the government even if they won't work?

I'm cutting through the rhetoric; just the core of what they believe in terms of policy or Constitutional matters.

 

AOC is an amateur politician like Trump. She didn't invent the Green New Deal but rather adopted it in a hamfisted way no different than Trump took up his anti-immigration stance that started with "no muslim immigrants" and a depiction of Mexicans as "rapists".

In both cases they are political equivalents to twitter shock jocks better at pithy witty responses than any deep knowledge of facts and issues.

Both have some ideas that have merit but neither is equipped to have an honest intellectual discussion of their plans because they are too shallow. It's she shallowness that drives their strategy of pithy responses. It hides the fact that they are incapable of a real debate.

 

They appeal to their constituents similarly.

They both want others to ignore factual inconsistencies while taking the overall message seriously.

 

Either they are just that sloppy as individuals or they're that cynical about their audience. Trump reminds me of a guy I used to work for who deliberately inflamed people. He was a real estate developer and a venture capitalist. He told me that most people cannot think straight when they are upset. It was clear that emotional or heated conversations didn't bother him in the least. He always maintained his focus even when it appeared he was being emotional. It was a tactic. Sometimes I think that's what Trump does. Is that me giving him more credit for design than he deserves? Maybe. It's clear he has an egomaniac and I don't think he invented the bombast the day he took office. That's who he is; but did he underestimate the power of the political opponents? Does he care? I don't know. It may be that he is a liar or just someone who spew crap to create turmoil while he operates.

As for AOC, she is so young and has no background like Trump or my old boss. I tend to believe she is honestly that passionate. She has already decided that her moral imperatives supersede facts. She is very arrogant for a rookie, but young people do have that passion that tends to out-pace reality sometimes. I used to see that in the intense youth leaders at a church I once attended. They would sign their letters, "In his blood." Real intense and I thought the church needed that intensity because all the old faithful would just trudge in and out on Sundays without much energy. She is bringing energy. Somebody on the Left needs to gain her ear in order to point her in the right direction. She is perilously close to losing all credibility (if not already with the people that matter) but people have short memories (see Robert Byrd). Nancy Pelosi (as I've mentioned before) seems to be the adult in the room all of a sudden. She gets it and that is why she is the speaker of the house.