The Trump Presidency – 2016

[Bee]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Thing is, and you know this obviously, with the target audience (his "base") this is a 100% effective talking point. He says this on the risers at one of his rallies, and he will get screams of delight and agreement. That's just what politics has become now.

We've run out of insults and analogies to describe this guy. Con man, carnival barker, and aspiring fascist are, unbelievably, not even negative enough to fully characterize this guy.

I used to think he was a con man, but I've come to believe that he actually thinks what he says is true and makes sense, which is far more dangerous in my opinion.

[BYU 14]

Originally Posted by Bee

I used to think he was a con man, but I've come to believe that he actually thinks what he says is true and makes sense, which is far more dangerous in my opinion.

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. When you consistently speak fiction as fact and vice versa the line between them becomes so blurred that one begins to lose sight of where it really is.

[PilotMan]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

There is absolutely no doubt in my mind. When you consistently speak fiction as fact and vice versa the line between them becomes so blurred that one begins to lose sight of where it really is.

There was an ad for Parkinson's Medication on tv today, and I really felt like it really seemed like they were just talking about trump. No offense to anyone with Parkinson's that they would be lumped into that basket though.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Atocep

The average Trump voter would rather he stand up to the libs than actually be intelligent and knowledgeable.

Truth.

Originally Posted by HerRealName

I'm also wondering which politicians you consider to be a Socialist? Is Bernie Sanders? How about AOC?

I don't know enough about AOC - I agree with those who say it's ridiculous all the hand-wringing being done about her when she hasn't taken office yet. Particularly considering Sanders, who I think is the best example. Yes, he's a socialist. Don't have to take my word for it, he's been calling himself one for 30 years. More specifically, he's defined it in terms of economic democracy - i.e. equality of outcome - going so far to say that political democracy is basically worthless without it. Again his words not mine.

As far as Steve King is concerned, I think he probably is a white supremacist based on the documented statements I've read about, though I don't know enough about him to be sure. I know it's not the way most people do things these days, but I don't pay a great deal of attention to people like him one way or the other. I.e, I worry a lot more about who represents me - and I don't live in Iowa - and try to let other people worry about who represents them. So for me, it's about the president, or in the last election Sen. Stabenow, Gov. Whitmer, etc. in Michigan.

Originally Posted by RainMaker

I do know an actual socialist has no chance of being elected President (let alone any major office)

See: Sen. Bernie Sanders(VT), a competitive runner-up for Democratic nominee for president, 2016. See also: the global trend of political power going to the extremes and away from the middle - Brazil and Germany being the most recent examples.

Originally Posted by MarcVaughan

Out of interest what do you mean by 'socialist' - people who like the idea of a nationalised healthcare system where people are treated regardless of income or the literal definition of it? ...

The literal definition of it, under which the United States for example is a primarily capitalist system with some socialist elements, and many European countries by comparison are the reverse; some capitalism is still involved, but primarily socialist. A nationalized healthcare system such as you described would probably be socialist in nature - I don't know of an example of another way to fund it without that being the case. .

[Atocep]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

See: Sen. Bernie Sanders(VT), a competitive runner-up for Democratic nominee for president, 2016. See also: the global trend of political power going to the extremes and away from the middle - Brazil and Germany being the most recent examples.

I think Bernie is a good case for why a socialist isn't winning a Presidential election any time soon.

And the definition of democratic socialism that we see in AOC and Bernie really gets twisted by the right. It's not the literal definition of socialism. That's not happening here and no one that I've seen with any serious national political aspirations is pushing for that.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I don't know enough about AOC - I agree with those who say it's ridiculous all the hand-wringing being done about her when she hasn't taken office yet. Particularly considering Sanders, who I think is the best example. Yes, he's a socialist. Don't have to take my word for it, he's been calling himself one for 30 years. More specifically, he's defined it in terms of economic democracy - i.e. equality of outcome - going so far to say that political democracy is basically worthless without it. Again his words not mine.

This was my point all along. The Democrats surveyed favoring Socialism are viewing themselves as supporters of the Sanders-led left wing. Very, very few are advocating for a South American style Socialist government take over of private enterprise. By the way, he refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist.

The equality of outcome statement sounds like some awful Ben Shaprio speech. I seriously doubt you can find a statement from Sanders saying he's in favor of equality of outcome. He just wants to reduce income inequality - the string pullers on the right are going to get twitchy when they hear that. He's in favor of a $15 minimum wage, right? How can you be in favor of a minimum wage yet advocate for equality of outcome. That makes no sense.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by HerRealName

This was my point all along. The Democrats surveyed favoring Socialism are viewing themselves as supporters of the Sanders-led left wing. Very, very few are advocating for a South American style Socialist government take over of private enterprise. By the way, he refers to himself as a Democratic Socialist.

I think the number of people advocating for full blown socialism are greater than you think. Many think countries like Venezuela would be a paradise except that the CIA keeps them down. And a Democratic Socialist is still a Socialist.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders

human beings can own the means of production and work together rather than having to work as semi-slaves to other people who can hire and fire

Literally the dictionary definition of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders

I believe in democracy, and by democracy I mean that, to as great an extent as possible, human beings have the right to control their own lives. And that means that you cannot separate the political structure from the economic structure. One has to be an idiot to believe that the average working person who’s making $10,000 or $12,000 a year is equal in political power to somebody who is the head of a large bank or corporation. So if you believe in political democracy, if you believe in equality, you have to believe in economic democracy as well.

Without actually using the words equality of outcome, he could hardly make it more clear. This is literally what the phrase economic democracy means; that all people are made equal economically, not just politically. That's what he says in this quote as well.

Originally Posted by HerRealName

How can you be in favor of a minimum wage yet advocate for equality of outcome. That makes no sense.

Aside from the fact that there's no other logical way to read quotes like the above, he's a pragmatic politician You take what you can get if you can't get everything you want. Politicians of every stripe do this on a wide range of issues. A big increase in the minimum wage is a more equal outcome than what we have now, therefore it's a big step in the right direction. He's also praised nations like Denmark that are more socialist than capitalist specifically for being so. Etc.

Originally Posted by Atocep

I think Bernie is a good case for why a socialist isn't winning a Presidential election any time soon.

Why? He wasn't far from being nominated and polling at the time showed him doing about as well as Hillary vis a vis Trump. It's not as if he was laughed off the stage.

Originally Posted by Atocep

he definition of democratic socialism that we see in AOC and Bernie really gets twisted by the right. It's not the literal definition of socialism.

Yes it is, actually:

Originally Posted by Oxford Dictionary

political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

In many of the countries that Sanders and those who agree with him ideologically praise, overall tax rates are significantly above 50%. By definition, that makes them more socialist than capitalist - the government controls the majority of the economy. Calling these countries socialist isn't any wronger than calling the US a capitalist one just because some of the economy is still controlled by the collective and we have some socialistic elements. It's an accurate description of what the primary, not exclusive, basis for the economy is. If one says 'completely socialist' or '100% socialist' etc., then yeah that's wrong - but that's not what most people who use the terms are out there saying.

[HerRealName]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Literally the dictionary definition of socialism is collective ownership of the means of production.



Without actually using the words equality of outcome, he could hardly make it more clear. This is literally what the phrase economic democracy means; that all people are made equal economically, not just politically. That's what he says in this quote as well.



Aside from the fact that there's no other logical way to read quotes like the above, he's a pragmatic politician You take what you can get if you can't get everything you want. Politicians of every stripe do this on a wide range of issues. A big increase in the minimum wage is a more equal outcome than what we have now, therefore it's a big step in the right direction. He's also praised nations like Denmark that are more socialist than capitalist specifically for being so. Etc.



Why? He wasn't far from being nominated and polling at the time showed him doing about as well as Hillary vis a vis Trump. It's not as if he was laughed off the stage.



Yes it is, actually:



In many of the countries that Sanders and those who agree with him ideologically praise, overall tax rates are significantly above 50%. By definition, that makes them more socialist than capitalist - the government controls the majority of the economy. Calling these countries socialist isn't any wronger than calling the US a capitalist one just because some of the economy is still controlled by the collective and we have some socialistic elements. It's an accurate description of what the primary, not exclusive, basis for the economy is. If one says 'completely socialist' or '100% socialist' etc., then yeah that's wrong - but that's not what most people who use the terms are out there saying.

In this article that you used, here's a better quote:
14 things Bernie Sanders has said about socialism - POLITICO

"4. In an interview with Catherine Alison Hill for a master’s thesis she wrote at Cornell in 1989: “Socialism has a lot of different messages to different people. I think the issue of socialist ideology and what that meant or means is not terribly important. I think the positive of it is that it indicates to people that I am not a conventional politician. If they are not happy with the status quo, then that is a positive thing. The negative of it obviously is that there are people who equate it with totalitarianism and the Soviet Union.”

It pretty much describes this conversation perfectly.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Without actually using the words equality of outcome, he could hardly make it more clear. This is literally what the phrase economic democracy means; that all people are made equal economically, not just politically. That's what he says in this quote as well.

Economic democracy just means seeing some decentralization in the economy. More businesses operating as co-ops. Workers having a bigger say through unions. And the limiting of monopolies.

Right now a handful of companies and individuals dictate how the country is run.

I mean I don't agree with a lot of the stuff he says but I don't see him calling for seizing companies or any of that stuff.

[thesloppy]

Call me crazy, but I feel like the threat of socialist politicians is that if they are elected en masse over the course of many years, history shows they *might* serve to effect systematic changes that would result in a fractional reduction of your take home income, based on hypotheticals and assumptions of things that have never actually occurred in the modern history of this country. Whereas if you're a person of color (or even an adjacent supporter/protestor), a white supremacist might stab you to death tomorrow, or at the very least yell racial slurs at your children on a daily basis, based on a long, factual demonstrable history of unchecked white supremacist violence and speech in America. Personally, I find the distinction incredibly easy to make, but I suppose your mileage may vary.

[AlexB]

Sounds like BS is talking more about communism rather than socialism. Socialism involves partial state ownership to regulate equality (edit: or reduce inequality), communism is full blown equality of ownership.

Do you know the difference between a Communist and a Socialist? | The Independent

[thesloppy]

I think cherry picking Bernie's most extreme quotes and then transferring those beliefs onto the entire base of Americans with even the slightest socialist leanings (having already been defined with the broadest brush possible) is disingenuous regardless of how define Bernie's personal politics.

To wit, the conservative posters on this site have many times stated that this board leans heavy liberal, but I would be surprised if you could find even a single post in the entire history of this board advocating for the total public ownership of private enterprise. On the other hand, I can recall multiple posts predicting Barack Obama's inevitable assassination, just off the top of my head, but again I suppose your mileage may vary.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Her Real Name

"4. In an interview with Catherine Alison Hill for a master’s thesis she wrote at Cornell in 1989: “Socialism has a lot of different messages to different people. I think the issue of socialist ideology and what that meant or means is not terribly important. I think the positive of it is that it indicates to people that I am not a conventional politician. If they are not happy with the status quo, then that is a positive thing. The negative of it obviously is that there are people who equate it with totalitarianism and the Soviet Union.”

It pretty much describes this conversation perfectly.

Except it doesn't. Not once did I call Sanders a communist or equate him with them. I do agree with Marx that communism is the natural endpoint of socialist systems, but Sanders has never advocated for communism that I am aware of, and I didn't come within a thousand miles of accusing him of that.

Originally Posted by Rainmaker

Economic democracy just means seeing some decentralization in the economy. More businesses operating as co-ops. Workers having a bigger say through unions. And the limiting of monopolies.

No it doesn't. I mean again, this is just literal definition time. It doesn't fit what Sanders said, when he equated it to political democracy which is absolute equality; 1 person 1 vote. The term simply doesn't fit if you don't have collective ownership of the economy. I mean there are two words in the phrase. Those words aren't anti-trust or collective bargaining.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I think cherry picking Bernie's most extreme quotes and then transferring those beliefs onto the entire base of Americans with even the slightest socialist leanings (having already been defined with the broadest brush possible) is disingenuous regardless of how define Bernie's personal politics.

The irony drips. The slightest socialist leanings? Talk about being disingenous. As mentioned multiple times already, America has a number of socialist policies already implemented. A lot of them nobody runs around screaming about. I've also already said I support a lot of those items. I don't know a single decision-maker who can accurately be said NOT to have 'slightest socialist leanings', and I'm not the one redefining socialism here. That belongs to people who keep implying that if you're not talking Venezuela, you're not really talking about socialism. I've limited my assessment to those who it really belongs to; those who, Sanders being merely the most famous one of them in modern America, want an expansion of government control of the economy to the point where it is more public-controlled than private-controlled.

I'm not trying to cherry-pick Sanders either. I want to represent his views fairly, despite the absolutely false accusation that a couple people have made in which I'm making him into a Stalinist. He isn't, and I haven't said so. But this whole 'he's just a democratic socialist, not a real one' thing is just silly.

** He's been a long-standing proponent of Eugene Debs, Socialist Party candidate for President in the early 20th century. In his own words, Sanders called Debs a radical socialist and revolutionary, and in a glowing not insulting sense.

** He's repeatedly flat-out just called himself a socialist.

** Endorsements of Finland, Sweden, Denmark etc. as models for the USA to follow are all over the place.

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders

I bet I'm the only socialist he knows ... I doubt that there are any other socialists, let alone 17 more, in all of the Congress.

Originally Posted by Bernie Sanders on This Week after the issue of him being a socialist who wants America to look more like Scandinavia was brought up

That’s right. That’s right. And what’s wrong with that? What’s wrong when you have more income and wealth equality?

Of course no matter how many quotes I produce people will still throw out the idea that I'm being extreme. But if you're really interested in what he thinks and not shooting the messenger, the first one here comes from a statement that came from his own official senate website. Sanders, and many others, use the terms socialism and democratic socialism interchangeably - which really indicates what democratic socialism actually means.

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Whereas if you're a person of color (or even an adjacent supporter/protestor), a white supremacist might stab you to death tomorrow, or at the very least yell racial slurs at your children on a daily basis, based on a long, factual demonstrable history of unchecked white supremacist violence and speech in America.

Second time someone's made this point, which I think is just a disconnect. I've been comparing things based on the political realm. I think the chance of a random white supremacist committing an act of violence is indeed much higher than a socialist doing so; I'm talking about the danger of a political movement enacting policy change that impacts the entire country. I mean, since we don't jail people for beliefs last I checked, the way to deal with people who are dangerous in the sense of individual violence is via law enforcement once they've crossed the line.

[Edward64]

FWIW, see below discussion on what Bernie is.

From what I've read, he's not a true socialist but has socialist leanings. So maybe on a scale of 1-10, he's a 7-8.

Political positions of Bernie Sanders - Wikipedia

Sanders described himself as a "democratic socialist"[3] and an admirer of aspects of social democracy as practiced in the Scandinavian countries. In an address on his political philosophy given at Georgetown University in November 2015, Sanders identified his conception of "democratic socialism" with Franklin D. Roosevelt's proposal for a Second Bill of Rights,[4][5] saying that democratic socialism means creating "an economy that works for all, not just the very wealthy," reforming the political system (which Sanders says is "grossly unfair" and "in many respects, corrupt"), recognizing health care and education as rights, protecting the environment, and creating a "vibrant democracy based on the principle of one person, one vote."[6] He explained that democratic socialism not tied to Marxism or the abolition of capitalism, it instead describes a program of extensive social benefits, funded by broad-based taxes.[7]

Commentary of others

Multiple commentators have examined Sanders' characterization of his political platform and ideology as "democratic socialism" and generally found it to support tax-funded social benefits rather than social ownership of the means of production.

Academics

Samuel Goldman, assistant professor of political science at George Washington University, states that Sanders' platform is not socialist and is better described as "welfarism" reminiscent of the 1950s that aims to regulate rather than to replace capitalism. Goldman notes that Sanders does not advocate public ownership of the means of production nor does he seek to abolish the profit system, both of which Goldman considers to be defining characteristics of socialism.[8]

Lane Kenworthy, professor of sociology at the University of California at San Diego, has stated that Sanders is a social democrat and not a democratic socialist, and that the two ideologies are fundamentally different from each other. Kenworthy points out that social democracy does not aim to abolish capitalism, and argues that Sanders' use of the term "socialism" when he actually advocates "social democracy" is causing more confusion than it is adding value, and might unnecessarily have a negative impact on his presidential campaign. Mike Konczal, an economic policy expert at the Roosevelt Institute, also characterizes Sanders' positions as "social democracy" rather than "socialist", noting that social democracy means support for a mixed economy combining private enterprise with government spending, social insurance programs, Keynesian macroeconomic policies, and democratic participation in government and the workplace—all of which are a part of Sanders' platform.[9]

Andrei Markovits, professor of political science at the University of Michigan, defines democratic socialism as "an attempt to create a property-free, socialist society" and something that does not exist in Denmark or anywhere else in the world, and argues that Sanders' explanation of the term is inaccurate.[10]

Socialist organizations

American socialists and representatives belonging to the Democratic Socialists of America, Socialist Workers Party and Socialist Party USA have criticized Sanders, arguing that he is not a socialist because he aims to reform capitalism rather than to replace it with an entirely different socialist system.[11] Despite these criticisms however, the Democratic Socialists of America "strongly support(ed)" his campaign for President.[12] Former Sanders colleague, Peter Diamondstone, claimed that Sanders was a socialist during his time in the Liberty Union Party but is no longer a true socialist.[13]

Bhaskar Sunkara, the founder, editor, and publisher of the socialist journal Jacobin, considered Sanders to be a social democrat and not a socialist.[4]

Other commentators

In 2015, The New Republic distinguished between socialism and "democratic socialism", suggesting that Sanders himself was loose with the distinction in his terminology and that the United States already had such social democratic programs as Social Security and Medicare.[14] Noam Chomsky, a social commentator and activist, called Sanders an "honest New Dealer" and not a true socialist.[15]

In a 2016 editorial, The Economist suggested that, despite calling himself a "democratic socialist", Sanders actually fits the mold of a "social democrat" for his embrace of "private companies that thrive and grow in America” and belief that “the middle class and the working families who produce the wealth of America deserve a fair deal”.[16]

A Forbes commentator suggested that his "democratic socialism" is really social democracy, as found in much of Europe and especially in the Nordic countries.[17] In 2018, The Week suggested that there was a trend towards social democracy in the United States and highlighted elements of its implementation in the Nordic countries and suggested that Sanders popularity was an element in favor of its possible growth in acceptance.[18]

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

No it doesn't. I mean again, this is just literal definition time. It doesn't fit what Sanders said, when he equated it to political democracy which is absolute equality; 1 person 1 vote. The term simply doesn't fit if you don't have collective ownership of the economy. I mean there are two words in the phrase. Those words aren't anti-trust or collective bargaining.

Yes it does. Seriously, what is with this "literal definition time" where you don't actually use the literal definitions? Democracy is about each person getting a vote, which results in DIFFERENT OUTCOMES depending on how people vote. This is an incredible missing the point of what economic democracy actually means.

Here is more reading:
Economic democracy - Wikipedia

Originally Posted by wikipedia

Economic democracy is a socioeconomic philosophy that proposes to shift decision-making power from corporate managers and corporate shareholders to a larger group of public stakeholders that includes workers, customers, suppliers, neighbors and the broader public.

And the wiki article goes into detail about how different strands have different opinions, from full scale control of the means of production, to merely increasing the power of unions and (like Germany) mandating they get a voice at the Board of Directors.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

As a reform agenda, supporting theories and real-world examples range from decentralization and economic liberalization to democratic cooperatives, public banking, fair trade and the regionalization of food production and currency.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Seriously, what is with this "literal definition time" where you don't actually use the literal definitions? Democracy is about each person getting a vote, which results in DIFFERENT OUTCOMES depending on how people vote. This is an incredible missing the point of what economic democracy actually means.

I respect your fairmindedness and intelligence considerably. I just don't get this though. Equality of outcome doesn't mean everyone must use their power the same way. When used in economic terms, literally nobody thinks it means that everyone must have the same car, live in the same city, buy the same food, have similar/identical houses, etc. It's about equalizing the power and then letting people choose how they use it. I am using the literal definition here, I specifically said 'collective ownership of the economy' in what you quoted. I.e., the economy is run by decisions of the people, not those of corporations and so on.

For crying out loud, it was just a couple weeks ago, if that, when we had a discussion about the US Senate and how undemocratic it is. And I agreed then, and I agree now. More importantly, nobody tried to argue that it wasn't. Everyone was on-board with that being what democracy means, as they should have been, because it does. The Senate is a feature of a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But it's a lot more democratic than a system in which you merely have stronger unions or a voice on the Board. So seriously, and without trying to be pedantic, what the heck is democracy then if it means equal power to all people in terms of a legislature but it doesn't mean that at all in the economy? Is there some decoder ring or guidebook I can consult so I know when words don't actually mean what they mean, but they mean something completely different just because it's more fashionable to call them that these days, with no guarantee whatsoever they will still mean that five minutes from now? I must be behind the curve, because I thought that was what the dictionary was for, and that by combining the terms 'economic' and 'democracy' I could arrive at the meaning of economic democracy. I don't know what else to call this situation but Orwellian.

Originally Posted by Syme

It's a beautiful thing, the destruction of words. ... A word contains its opposite in itself

[Thomkal]

So much winning: NY Supreme Court denies Trump Foundations attempts to dismiss, lawsuit will continue. Tweet about leftist judges in 3..2...1...

[Brian Swartz]

Maybe he felt the need to proclaim his thankfulness for his own accomplishments as President since so few - relatively - of his fellow citizens are fans of what he's done. Narcissism and lack of dignity on parade. I continue to hope he eventually turns the page and improves, but that's exceedingly unlikely unfortunately.

[Edward64]

Kudos to Fox News for doing the right thing.

I watched the replay and it was an immediate response and apology. Hopefully this Paulina will be blacklisted going forward.

Fox News Apologizes For Guest Who Likened Hillary Clinton To ‘Herpes’ | HuffPost

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I respect your fairmindedness and intelligence considerably. I just don't get this though. Equality of outcome doesn't mean everyone must use their power the same way. When used in economic terms, literally nobody thinks it means that everyone must have the same car, live in the same city, buy the same food, have similar/identical houses, etc. It's about equalizing the power and then letting people choose how they use it. I am using the literal definition here, I specifically said 'collective ownership of the economy' in what you quoted. I.e., the economy is run by decisions of the people, not those of corporations and so on.

For crying out loud, it was just a couple weeks ago, if that, when we had a discussion about the US Senate and how undemocratic it is. And I agreed then, and I agree now. More importantly, nobody tried to argue that it wasn't. Everyone was on-board with that being what democracy means, as they should have been, because it does. The Senate is a feature of a constitutional republic, not a democracy. But it's a lot more democratic than a system in which you merely have stronger unions or a voice on the Board. So seriously, and without trying to be pedantic, what the heck is democracy then if it means equal power to all people in terms of a legislature but it doesn't mean that at all in the economy? Is there some decoder ring or guidebook I can consult so I know when words don't actually mean what they mean, but they mean something completely different just because it's more fashionable to call them that these days, with no guarantee whatsoever they will still mean that five minutes from now? I must be behind the curve, because I thought that was what the dictionary was for, and that by combining the terms 'economic' and 'democracy' I could arrive at the meaning of economic democracy. I don't know what else to call this situation but Orwellian.

Democracy literally means power or rule of the people. By adding more input by the workers of a corporation, through increased union representation or voices of the workers on the Board of Directors, it increases the rule of those corporations by the majority of the people who work for those corporations. That there be more democracy in the economy. You don't need full collective ownership of the means of production in order to move towards economic democracy. Perhaps if you wanted "pure" economic democracy, but we can also say similar things about pure capitalism vs. the pragmatic and more moderate sorts.

Democratic elections are, IMO, the dictionary definition of the term equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome (and the later becomes especially obvious if you are a big supporter of a third party). You all have equal opportunities to vote (well, sometimes..) but the outcomes are vastly different based on other people decide to vote.

In the same way, in systems that promote more economic democracy, the workers have greater opportunities to be heard in the governance of corporations, but that doesn't mean everyone ends up gets the same pay (for instance).

I really don't understand why this is so difficult to grasp and how it doesn't correspond to basic dictionary definitions of these terms.

I think you've managed to set up a big ole strawman disconnected from historical usage of the term and you simply can't move from this strawman you've created even in the face of people telling you that your strawman is incorrect.

And if you believe that to be an Orwellian change of definitions, then man, the Republic that is the US being called a Democracy all over the place must really rile you up.

[ISiddiqui]

For example, here is a Forbes article from 2016 by John Harvey, a Professor of Economics at Texas Christian University, shedding perhaps a bit more light on what democracy or democratic may mean in the context of an economy (and no, it doesn't automatically mean 'one person one share'):

Bernie Sanders As A Democratic Capitalist

And so in summary, one can characterize Sanders’ economic policies as being focused on generating demand and therefore jobs; guarding against the crises that are systemic in market capitalism; and reversing the trend of monopolization in America’s industries and concentrations of wealth. Is that what he means by democratic socialism? I guess it must be since it’s consistent with both his policy statements and the Stigler Center’s capture index. But to be honest, it doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. The modifier “democratic” is fair enough as he promises to break up concentrations of power and ensure that the people are restored as the real decision makers. The rest of his platform, however, seems much more capitalistic than socialistic. To be fair, there are some issues where he is recommending a stronger role for government. That said, Adam Smith, too, thought there were functions of society that made more sense left to the public sector. But on the big questions, it is difficult to see where the Father of Capitalism would have taken strong issue with the democratic socialist from Vermont.

Perhaps Bernie Sanders should start calling himself a democratic capitalist instead.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

the Republic that is the US being called a Democracy all over the place must really rile you up.

Yes it does, because it is a Republic and the difference is more than semantic; the priorities in the two systems are not at all the same in many respects; it's not a trivial or merely surface-level distinction. Re; your description of democracy, would you then say that the entire board was wrong in describing elections for the US Senate as undemocratic?

Originally Posted by Isiddiqui

Democratic elections are, IMO, the dictionary definition of the term equality of opportunity, but not equality of outcome

Thanks for stating this as clearly as you have here. All I can say is I do not at all understand why no difference is seen between equality of power and sameness in how that power is used, two very different concepts. I don't think I can fruitfully go any further with that.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Yes it does, because it is a Republic and the difference is more than semantic; the priorities in the two systems are not at all the same in many respects; it's not a trivial or merely surface-level distinction. Re; your description of democracy, would you then say that the entire board was wrong in describing elections for the US Senate as undemocratic?

Thanks for stating this as clearly as you have here. All I can say is I do not at all understand why no difference is seen between equality of power and sameness in how that power is used, two very different concepts. I don't think I can fruitfully go any further with that.

I think you are basically being very, very pedantic about these definitions and using them in ways that are not used in real world parlance. After all, by the literal letter of the word, there has never been a democracy in the history of the world (the Athenian democracy excluded lots of folks). And a procedure can be undemocratic and still be part of a Democracy (in addition to the EC and Senate in the US, the Athenian restrictions of citizenship and only men could vote in the Assembly were undemocratic limitations in the first Democracy).

[NobodyHere]

Major Trump administration climate report says damages are 'intensifying across the country' - Los Angeles Times

Now where did the administration put that rug to sweep this under?

[Brian Swartz]

And yet those people I rub shoulders with and occasionally discuss politics with have no issue with calling the USA a republic. Most of them are pretty apathetic and just think our government is corrupt and stop there without any real abiding political interest or ideology, but they still don't object to 'my' definition of republic/democracy as one example, some of them having known the difference themselves since taking social studies in early high school. I find that the variability in language is much more pronounced among established elites.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

In many of the countries that Sanders and those who agree with him ideologically praise, overall tax rates are significantly above 50%.

I just want to pull this out. I'm not sure where you're getting your info, but the 2015 OECD stats don't have a single country with taxation over 50% of GDP.

[Brian Swartz]

That's true on what OECD measures, which is income tax. For example, 36% in Denmark, 43% in Sweden. Both countries also have a 25% VAT which is not taken into account by the OECD because it isn't what they are trying to calculate, and so on.

[JPhillips]

The chart I looked at claimed to be measuring all taxation as a percentage of GDP.

[Brian Swartz]

Link? I can't find any OECD measure like that, though admittedly I don't spend a lot of time reviewing their data.

[JPhillips]

You can find a number of different charts by searching tax as a percentage of GDP OECD. The definition of total tax revenue is:

Tax revenue is defined as the revenues collected from taxes on income and profits, social security contributions, taxes levied on goods and services, payroll taxes, taxes on the ownership and transfer of property, and other taxes. Total tax revenue as a percentage of GDP indicates the share of a country's output that is collected by the government through taxes. It can be regarded as one measure of the degree to which the government controls the economy's resources. The tax burden is measured by taking the total tax revenues received as a percentage of GDP. This indicator relates to government as a whole (all government levels) and is measured in million USD and percentage of GDP.

[Brian Swartz]

Having looked at that more, it seems there is a disconnect at some level - I'm not sure where it is, I don't know the technical of economics well enough on that score - between tax revenue and government revenue. OECD's figures for the latter are higher. Regardless of that, the 2015 set which does seem to the be most recent complete one lists the following nations as having government spending at 50% or higher of GDP:

Austria
Belgium
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Hungary
Italy

Numbers are slightly lower than what I've read elsewhere, and I'm not sure why that is but I have no reason not to conclude that OECD is accurate and that some nations - Sweden in particular - are less socialized than I thought.

[AlexB]

Just because spendng is more than 50% doesn’t mean taxation is over 50%. The vast majority of nations run budget deficits

My understanding falls about where the World Bank credit comes from to enable these deficits: governments usually project reducing the rate of increase of GDP as a victory, rather than reducing the deficit itself, which suggests papering over the cracks, refinancing, or similar.

Which in turn are short term measures, and can maybe help explain Cyprus, Greece, Ireland, Italy, etc (I’m sure there will be other examples elsewhere in the world, they’re just the ones I am more aware of given my location)

[Edward64]

I didn't read BS quote on "overall tax rates are significantly above 50%" as a % of GDP measure.

Below is an article with an analysis.

http://www.institutmolinari.org/IMG/...en-eu-2017.pdf

For the third consecutive year, typical workers in the European Union see their average “real tax rate” dip slightly (0.16%) this year, from 44.96% to 44.8%.,workers’ taxes remain nearly 1% higher than in 2010, due in large part to VAT increases in 20 of the 28 member states during this period.

For the list of countries discussed so far, there is a breakdown on page 8. For "Real Tax Rate", the definition is

(Social Security Contributions + Income Tax + VAT ) / Real Gross Salary

Austria - 54.28%
Belgium - 56.74%
Denmark - 41.41%
Finland - 46.36%
France - 57.41%
Greece - 52.10%
Hungary - 50.88%
Italy - 51.56%
Sweden - 47.40%

So bottom line - many do have over 50+%, many do have in 40+% range.

[JPhillips]

That's a little apples to oranges. I was using national taxation as a percentage of GDP while your study looks at taxation on one worker's income level.

And here's what started this:

In many of the countries that Sanders and those who agree with him ideologically praise, overall tax rates are significantly above 50%.

[Ksyrup]

That's like arguing temperature versus feels like. I don't really care if the temperature is 28, if it feels like 10, it's frickin' 10.

[Brian Swartz]

The original point though was how much of the economy is controlled collectively. Taxation compared to GDP doesn't measure that either, because it's comparing something on opposite sides of the balance sheet so that's apples to oranges as well. Government deficit spending as cited by AlexB contributes to increasing GDP - I didn't use the GDP comparison partly for that reason. But if we want to use GDP, then total government spending is the most relevant thing to compare it to.

[JPhillips]

I'm not arguing for or against any method as I don't think any of these measurements shows how much or little socialism there is. I was simply correcting your point about several countries being taxed over 50% and the only way to measure that would be taxation as a percentage of GDP.

edit: For example, China has taxation at about 20% of GDP and spending at about 32% of GDP, while the USA is 26% and 36%. I don't think many would argue the US is much more socialist than China.

[Brian Swartz]

It's not the case that it's the only way to measure it though, as I pointed out. Taxation/GDP is a revenue to spending comparison, which is always going to be inherently flawed. Measures such as Edward64's link is more to the point in that case.

[JPhillips]

But that's just one specific income.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Ksyrup

That's like arguing temperature versus feels like. I don't really care if the temperature is 28, if it feels like 10, it's frickin' 10.

Yeah, in this case it seems like all the arguing and links have just confirmed that the 'sniff test' is probably more effective than any individual chart or particular tax formula.

That said, I feel like the truth that gets reinforced from this conversation is that when American conservatives talk about "Socialism" they are referring almost exclusively to a relatively high tax rate (and the things that lead you there), as opposed to any kind of specific governmental/economic policy. Defining what does and doesn't comprise socialism in other countries is a sizable red herring if everyone knows we're just talking about relatively higher taxes here.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

And yet those people I rub shoulders with and occasionally discuss politics with have no issue with calling the USA a republic. Most of them are pretty apathetic and just think our government is corrupt and stop there without any real abiding political interest or ideology, but they still don't object to 'my' definition of republic/democracy as one example, some of them having known the difference themselves since taking social studies in early high school. I find that the variability in language is much more pronounced among established elites.

You are moving goalposts (again). Do those people have any issue with people calling the US a Democracy? Because your issue is trying to redefine the popular definition of Democracy, not whether or not people are fine if someone calls it a Republic (which is a more exact definition). In my experience, it's usually the elites or the well-off that go "Actually the US is a Republic, not a Democracy" (generally to defend some undemocratic practice), whereas most regular people refer to the US as a Democracy. Generally it seems to be the academic elites that like the rigid definitions (for instance in the capitalism/socialism definitions) while the regular people define terms in ways that make the most sense (though that gets somewhat maddening as socialism can be defined in like 10 different ways depending on the people you are dealing with - as thesloppy refers to above about how some see socialism as equaling higher taxes). Some rigidity in definitions is ok, but when it becomes too rigid that nothing can fit it, then it becomes farcical.

[Edward64]

TBH I sense both sides are trying to explain their POV and there are nuances that are being missed.

You guys are too cerebral for me but this is how one common person (e.g. me) looks at it. Hope it helps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7468074d8d6

I often hear people argue that the United States is a republic, not a democracy. But that’s a false dichotomy. A common definition of “republic” is, to quote the American Heritage Dictionary, “A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them” — we are that. A common definition of “democracy” is, “Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives” — we are that, too.

The United States is not a direct democracy, in the sense of a country in which laws (and other government decisions) are made predominantly by majority vote. Some lawmaking is done this way, on the state and local levels, but it’s only a tiny fraction of all lawmaking. But we are a representative democracy, which is a form of democracy.

[Thomkal]

Corey Lewandowski and David Bossie have a new book coming out Tuesday and the Washington Post got an advance copy. I'm sure it was going to be full of remorse and apology for their views on Trump...uh no chance in hell. It's called Trump's Enemies: How the Deep State is undermining the Presidency, and its full of every far-right conspiracy theory out there. I'm sure we'll be seeing it in Trump's tweets too:


https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...=.b316041a1dcb


Corey was just on CNN this week too-wasn't talking about the book, but clearly there are some Trump supporters who should not be on mainstream media ever again.

[JPhillips]

I'll never understand why CNN keeps booking guests that have signed Trump's NDA.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBH I sense both sides are trying to explain their POV and there are nuances that are being missed.

You guys are too cerebral for me but this is how one common person (e.g. me) looks at it. Hope it helps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7468074d8d6

I completely agree with that definition, fwiw.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by Edward64

TBH I sense both sides are trying to explain their POV and there are nuances that are being missed.

You guys are too cerebral for me but this is how one common person (e.g. me) looks at it. Hope it helps.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...=.a7468074d8d6

This is a good article, thanks for posting.

I think the issue that some people have is that the representative democracy isn't representing everyone equally. The Senate for instance is probably the most glaring one. Wyoming has one Senator for every 290,000 people. Texas has one Senator for every 14 million.

Then you have gerrymandering which aims to unfairly distribute representation in the House. Both parties do it and it should be something that is abolished.

Then of course you have Washington DC which despite having a larger population than Vermont and Wyoming, has zero representation in the House and Senate. A bit of a disgrace for a country that's freedom centered around no taxation without representation.

[RainMaker]

When comparing tax rates between countries, you have to factor in the benefits received.

For instance, many of those high tax countries have national health care. In this country 10% of our income goes toward health care. So add that 10% on to your current tax rate.

Then you have to take the employer contribution from payroll taxes. That's another 7.65%.

Now factor in how much you're paying in property taxes each year. How much sales tax you pay. When all is said and done, I bet most middle class people are paying around 50% of their income to taxes.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by RainMaker

When comparing tax rates between countries, you have to factor in the benefits received.

For instance, many of those high tax countries have national health care. In this country 10% of our income goes toward health care. So add that 10% on to your current tax rate.

Then you have to take the employer contribution from payroll taxes. That's another 7.65%.

Now factor in how much you're paying in property taxes each year. How much sales tax you pay. When all is said and done, I bet most middle class people are paying around 50% of their income to taxes.

Admittedly tough to compare apples-to-apples between US and EU countries above.

For your 10% healthcare example, the US government does "subsidize" our healthcare by allowing corporations/us take tax deductions for contribution of healthcare costs. It's obviously not as straight forward EU but there is some and no idea how to measure the true delta.

For the employer payroll tax contribution, the above article did not factor that into their equation either for employees. I would not be surprised if EU employer portion was significantly higher than 7.65%. Same for property tax.

Sales tax comment is fair. GA sales tax is 4% which would be roughly equivalent to the VAT.

My postulates in re: to "benefits" are:

1) EU countries all-in taxes to employees are much higher than the US
2) EU countries all-in taxes to employers are much higher than the US
3) EU do provide "better" services (e.g. healthcare, education) with the taxes, and they provide "worse" services (e.g. paid days off, difficulty in firing employees)
4) US is still the better country warts and all (I'm obviously biased), there are more pros than cons

[AlexB]

UK employer contributions are 13.8% for reference