Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez Wears $3,500 Outfit

[Sparko]

Uh, where exactly in Denmark is that supposed to be?

from this post: https://methodicalinsanity.wordpress...e-anti-sweden/

[Sparko]

Which is also true. I'm just annoying Sparko, because I do see conservatives citing Venezuela or the likes whenever there's talk of comprehensive welfare (this is not being done in this thread). There's a switcheroo being played with the term.

I mean for crying out loud Fox News had a reporter comparing Denmark to Venezuela, and making all sorts of false claims about how almost no one was working.

So which is it. Is comprehensive welfare Socialism, or not?

So you aren't socialist yet you are upset when I say you are not socialist?

[JonathanL]

from this post: https://methodicalinsanity.wordpress...e-anti-sweden/

As I already mentioned in post #186, that picture wasn't taken in either Sweden, or Denmark. If you read the caption from the news story I linked it says it was taken in Baia Mare, in Romania.

[lilpixieofterror]

Well then why the comparisons to Venezuela and the Soviet Union? Denmark is neither, so apparently comprehensive wellfare =/= socialism.

I mean you can't have your cake and eat it too.

Because they are warnings of what happens when you go too far down that road.

[Tassman]

Please explain the difference in practical terms between socialism and communism.

I was referring to Democratic Socialism, which advocates social benefits and a generous welfare net within the framework of political democracy as opposed to Soviet era style Communism, which is not democratic.

And no, capitalism and socialism are not a question of degree, they are fundamentally different economics.

Yes it is a question of degree. Even the aggressively capitalist USA maintains social programs and provides social welfare benefits to a degree, albeit not as much compared to Australia and Scandinavia etc.

[Sparko]

I was referring to Democratic Socialism, which advocates social benefits and a generous welfare net within the framework of political democracy as opposed to Soviet era style Communism, which is not democratic.

So you think there is no practical difference between socialism and communism? Or you just don't know what it is?

Yes it is a question of degree. Even the aggressively capitalist USA maintains social programs and provides social welfare benefits to a degree, albeit not as much compared to Australia and Scandinavia etc.

Social programs are not socialism. A completely different animal.

Social programs have nothing to do with the fundamental economic system of government. Socialism does. As does Capitalism. Just because both have the same root word "social" doesn't make them the same. You might as well call Facebook and other Social media "socialist" by that criteria.

[JimL]

So you think there is no practical difference between socialism and communism? Or you just don't know what it is?

I think his point is that you are confusing socialism, purposefully confusing it, with democratic socialism. If you want a legitiment argument, then don't argue against something that your opposition is not contending.

Social programs are not socialism. A completely different animal.

True, they are social programs within a democratic system. It's only you that are trying to make this about pure socialism.

Social programs have nothing to do with the fundamental economic system of government. Socialism does. As does Capitalism. Just because both have the same root word "social" doesn't make them the same. You might as well call Facebook and other Social media "socialist" by that criteria.

Right, so stop with the obfuscation. No one on this side of the argument is advocating pure socialism.

[Sparko]

I think his point is that you are confusing socialism, purposefully confusing it, with democratic socialism. If you want a legitiment argument, then don't argue against something that your opposition is not contending.



True, they are social programs within a democratic system. It's only you that are trying to make this about pure socialism.

Right, so stop with the obfuscation. No one on this side of the argument is advocating pure socialism.

Jimmy, when I want your opinion I will give it to you. I was talking to Tassman. I am seriously starting to think you two are sockpuppets, because you constantly answer posts addressed to the other person. Except in your case you don't seem to even have a clue what Tassman was saying. Or me.

[Leonhard]

from this post: https://methodicalinsanity.wordpress...e-anti-sweden/

We don't have any place in Denmark that looks even remotely like that. The blog doesn't link to where it go the image from.

It appears Chrawnus has answered this already.

[Leonhard]

So you aren't socialist yet you are upset when I say you are not socialist?

If conservatives would quit the whole 'welfare equals socialism' that I seen in other places. It just annoys me.

[Leonhard]

Because they are warnings of what happens when you go too far down that road.

It works quite well in Scandinavia. We haven't sunk into a mores. We're doing quite a bit better than the US on a bunch of metrics, especially in terms of work force involvement, life expectancy and level of education.

[lilpixieofterror]

It works quite well in Scandinavia. We haven't sunk into a mores. We're doing quite a bit better than the US on a bunch of metrics, especially in terms of work force involvement, life expectancy and level of education.

And you have much higher tax rates, a much smaller population, a less diverse population, and an oil industry that gives unite a bit of money for a social welfare system. The US and Scandinavia are not apples to apples compared together.

[Roy]

And you have much higher tax rates, a much smaller population, a less diverse population, and an oil industry that gives unite a bit of money for a social welfare system. The US and Scandinavia are not apples to apples compared together.

The US produces slightly more oil than Denmark. If the US oil industry doesn't contribute money to a social welfare system, it's not due to a lack of revenue.

[lilpixieofterror]

The US produces slightly more oil than Denmark. If the US oil industry doesn't contribute money to a social welfare system, it's not due to a lack of revenue.

Is the US oil industry majorly owned by the US federal government?

[Starlight]

And you have much higher tax rates,

Did you know tax rates can be changed?

a much smaller population

Economies of scale mean it should work even better for the US.

If not, do it at a state level since your individual states are a similar size to Scandinavian countries.

a less diverse population

Not really relevant because NZ, Canada, and Australia all have populations as diverse as the US or more so and the welfare state functions fine in our countries.

and an oil industry that gives unite a bit of money for a social welfare system.

Some countries with good welfare systems are oil rich and some aren't (e.g. NZ), it's not required. However the US does have a strong oil industry, so it's totally your choice not to be taxing it more or having the government owning a company that operates in that sector.