Here's something that just came to mind.

I have never understood the characterization and association of the concept of conservatism and right wing to that of oppression. At least in a representative Republic. I would tend to associate conservatism with the speed and degree of change within ANY political system, rather than tag it as a negative concept in a free society. So it confuses me when I hear these terms tossed about by pundits and politicians more interested in muddy waters than the drinkable ones. Therefore the confusion is intentional whether by ill will or ignorance. It is meant to win an argument rather than define it correctly. And as I am trying to convey, I believe these markers (liberal-conservative) are totally different when applied to different political systems. In this case, a democratic Republic to a socialist regime.

WW2 had 3 verifiable fascist governments. I can't delineate the difference between them as to which one was "conservative" or more "liberal.'

Post WW2 (not including satellite client nations) had 2 giants of communism. Was one conservative and the other liberal?

I can't see it. So I can't answer it. Not at this point.

But I can tell you that conservative presence and nature in a Constitutional Republic as established and written in our country, has no connection with any communist or fascist socialist ideals.

It was a long road...but to compare conservatism in a Republic like ours, to any wing of any party or movement in another organization or country...and applying those terms and concepts of right wing to conservatism.....is apples to oranges.

It's a false start and can only lead to.........confusion.

Posted by DougOut on 7/4/2018 2:06:00 PM (view original):

Posted by tangplay on 7/4/2018 10:44:00 AM (view original):

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/4/2018 8:46:00 AM (view original):
I understand that Liberals, Progressives, Socialists want a peaceful world, everyone to enjoy a comfortable life. No one gets singled out.

But you have to have public policies that are well thought out, and that can be implemented and governed at least somewhat efficiently. They can't break the bank. California's proposed Single Payer would have tripled their annual budget.

America's population in 2060 is estimated to be 400-440 million, a 20-25 percent jump over the current 330 million. We must have an economy and the infrastructure to support it. Open borders, high unemployment, escalating national debt, overstressed federal assistance programs cannot provide adequately.

We have to get our ducks in a row.

There are not enough rich uncles to redistribute wealth to sustain a socialist society. Someone teach Bernie how to do math. Alinsky's ideas will not work here.

Open borders?
High unemployment?
National Debt?
Redistribution of wealth?

I don't think you understand what social democracy is. It isn't socialism.

????????????????????????????????????????????????????

I don't know what social democracy is.

I know the difference between social liberals and social conservatives.

I know the difference between fiscal liberals and fiscal conservatives.

I know that socialism embraces tenets of communism and fascism.

I know conservatism doesn't tolerate open borders, high unemployment, national debt or redistribution of wealth.

I don't know what social democracy is. Never heard of it before. Must be new.

Can you explain it to us?

Thank You.

Doug, the difference lies in who owns the means of production...private or public.

Miami, please forgive me. I'm a little slow.

My understanding of private production is Hershey Chocolate inc. Ford Motor co.
My understanding of public production is charity and taxes.

Investment is a totally different matter. It is both governmental and private. As citizens of a sovereign nation, we invest and consider ourselves as partial owners or beneficiaries of our limited term investment.

Our history of production and investment is one of improvement and advancement across the board.

I'm sorry if I didn't get your meaning. Please don't take it the wrong way. I'm sure we're pretty much on the same page.

HAPPY BELATED 4TH!

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/4/2018 1:48:00 PM (view original):
Free health care isn't free. Hospitals and doctors don't operate without adequate funding. There is a price tag, and it would be staggering. Claims of lower prices and better care were BS out of Obama's mouth. He couldn't deliver as advertised.

The proof is in the pudding...

Don't forget, politicians are in it for the vote, not for delivering...is why many voted in a businessman.

You are right. It isn't. However it has been proven that it is better than the alternative.

I will still bet on the private sector to deliver a better product that's affordable. The government is awful at doing anything that meets expectations, and they usually pay more than they should. As I have said before, when did the DMV ever exceed your expectations?

Not only do we get to drive....We get to vote for democrats too! I LOVE THE DMV! Exceeded all my expectations!

;)

The DMV, the VA...you want MORE for the government to mismanage? Your Healthcare? Seriously?

Posted by gomiami1972 on 7/4/2018 8:25:00 PM (view original):

Posted by DougOut on 7/4/2018 3:50:00 PM (view original):
Miami, please forgive me. I'm a little slow.

My understanding of private production is Hershey Chocolate inc. Ford Motor co.
My understanding of public production is charity and taxes.

Investment is a totally different matter. It is both governmental and private. As citizens of a sovereign nation, we invest and consider ourselves as partial owners or beneficiaries of our limited term investment.

Our history of production and investment is one of improvement and advancement across the board.

I'm sorry if I didn't get your meaning. Please don't take it the wrong way. I'm sure we're pretty much on the same page.

HAPPY BELATED 4TH!

Hey Doug,

First, I'm neither a socialist nor a social democrat. Having an academic background in economics, I can speak intelligently about classic Socialism. However, I had to look up what Social Democracy was and will probably be assaulted (and rightfully so) by social democrats about my ignorance.

Means of production refers to physical inputs and outputs...so raw material inputs such as metals, land, etc. being turned into economic value through outputs such as factories, farms, foundries, etc. Money (financial/investment capital) and people (human capital) are not considered in the equation.

Market Socialism requires the means of production to be either state owned or collectively owned by the masses. Read Karl Marx.

Social democrats, I think, do not believe in this type of system. Rather, social democrats prefer a mixed economy where many sectors will remain in private hands and others, like utilities, will be public (the USA is effectively a mixed economy already) but places a type of morality on capitalism so that the economic value generated by the outputs are used for the betterment of society as a whole rather than just the betterment of the private owners of those production means. If I'm preaching, I apologize.

...and yes, more times than not, you are I are on the same philosophical page. Have a great 4th of July evening and never forget what those fireworks symbolize.

Your research paid off!

That's pretty much correct.

Gomiami,

you just thoroughly offended every marxist by comparing Marxism to socialism. I have found out that is no-no.

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/4/2018 1:56:00 PM (view original):
What Socialists propose would place a huge burden on taxpayers.

Most Americans want choices in Healthcare. They don't want to be waiting months for surgeries, or to be told that Grandma is too old or not a worthy candidate for care. They don't want the government making those decisions. Rationed Healthcare sucks.

Free education? Once again, there is a price. Do the math.

That is true.
You have two options to pay for both free healthcare AND free education, which at max cost 100 bn dollars over 10 years.

1: Increase the top 1% of people's taxes slightly.

2: Cut the military budget by 10 bn

Where are your numbers coming from relating to the costs of healthcare and education. I'm not saying you're wrong, but they seam drastically low.

Posted by DoctorKz on 7/4/2018 5:55:00 PM (view original):
I will still bet on the private sector to deliver a better product that's affordable. The government is awful at doing anything that meets expectations, and they usually pay more than they should. As I have said before, when did the DMV ever exceed your expectations?

Most health in the world: Luxembourg - Public
2nd: Singapore - Mixed, but spends a lot
3rd: Switzerland - Public
4th: Japan - Public
5th: Netherlands - Mixed
6th: Sweden - Public
7th: Hong Kong - Mixed, mostly public
8th: Australia - Public
9th: Israel - Public
10th: Germany - Public

Sense a pattern?

Yes, the pattern is that all of the countries you listed have MUCH smaller populations.

Posted by strikeout26 on 7/4/2018 9:53:00 PM (view original):
Where are your numbers coming from relating to the costs of healthcare and education. I'm not saying you're wrong, but they seam drastically low.

Experts say that equal funding for education would cost 30 bn over 10 years (not free college).

I was wrong about the healthcare one. Bernie says it would cost 1.3 trillion per year over the first 10 years.

Ir would take a combination of the two.