Kingwood Underground
the heart and soul of our Kingwood, Texas family
Login - Create Account - Help
Clean out your garage on Kingwood bookoo! Or find local garage sales on Yard Sale Search.com
KU Live!

Democrats Aren't Socialists

who's talking here?

SoupIsGoodFood 1
kingwood resident 1
sdanielmcev 6
Emperor of Kingwood 3
Prolix Raconteur 1
RayofHope 4
LostWorld 2
roer de pot 4
OrdinaryGuy 5

     » send to friend     » save in my favorites     » flag dangerous topic flag as a dangerous topic

RayofHope --- 145 days ago -

That's the Democrat Party Mantra lately.

However, the new Democratic Party looks socialist. Democrats point out that free college, free healthcare, and free everything is popular with the general public.

What they don't tell you is how government will pay for all this free stuff. The covert answer is take from rich and give to the poor.

Remember the old saying: If it walks like a duck and quacks, it is probably a duck.

Problems With Socialism - It does not work. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 145 days ago -

Of course it fails. Sooner or later you run out of other peoples money.

VENZUALA 

LostWorld --- 145 days ago -

Just wait until his second term. Making America Great Again. A healthier America is a greater America. A more educated America is a greater America. I?m not saying he?s going to give it away but it will become more attainable for everyone and you?ll have Donald Trump to thank. 

RayofHope --- 145 days ago -

A more educated America is a greater America.

Good statement 

RayofHope --- 145 days ago -

LOL. Trumpflakes think they?re educated

Is that an intelligent post? 

SoupIsGoodFood --- 145 days ago -

LOL. 

RayofHope --- 145 days ago -

Your continual regurgitation of misinformation sure isn?t intelligent.

Have you noticed that when you post a fact, you get an insult (No facts).

Obviously, the First Amendment allows free speech, but it does not have to be intelligent or based on fact. 

roer de pot --- 145 days ago -

VENZUALA

I'm sorry - where?

But on a serious note, the issues in Venezuela can not be blamed on just "socialism." The problem has multiple root causes.

Socialism, in the most basic of terms, means that the government distributes the wealth among the people, and that the people, not wealthy individuals or corporations, control production and distribution of goods.

That is not what is happening in Venezuela, and many countries thrive under democratic socialism policies.

Falling oil prices and the naturalized oil sector is root case number one. Under President Chavez, poverty levels were significantly reduced due to socialism but under Maduro (who we classify as a dictator) those gains have been wiped out.

Greed, capitalism, and unsustainable debt have created this crisis, not socialism by itself.

trump routinely spews about socialism, but he doesn't understand the theory at ALL.

Venezuela is an oligarchy, not a socialist country. 

Prolix Raconteur --- 145 days ago -

Chavez set Venezuela on a crash course when he nationalized industry, literally stealing monetary and physical assets from numerous foreign corporations that had invested billions in Venezuela, causing a mass exodus of any foreign investment. He put his generals in charge of various industries (mainly oil production) and rampant corruption ensued. Tanking oil prices and no reinvestment in infrastructure only further exacerbated the decline. Maduro is nothing but a thug who blew the bottom out of an already sinking ship. Make no mistake, Venezuela was doomed from the day Chavez got in power. 

roer de pot --- 145 days ago -

^ I don't disagree with much of that. I think history will treat Chavez with mixed opinions but socialism isn't the sole reason for the issues in Venezuela. 

LostWorld --- 144 days ago -

I?m not for socialism but using third world countries to make a point about the USA is ridiculous. Wouldn?t America manage itself better than Venezuela?? It?s like using North Korea as an example of how to deal with immigration. We strive to be better than those places. 

kingwood resident --- 136 days ago -

Venezuela is a socialist country and the people are suffering as a result. If that happens we will be in the same situation as Venezuela. We cannot allow that to happen in the United States. I'm proud to call Donald Trump President, he is moving mountains to make America great
again. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 136 days ago -

Chavez set Venezuela on a crash course when he nationalized industry, literally stealing monetary and physical assets from numerous foreign corporations that had invested billions in Venezuela, causing a mass exodus of any foreign investment. He put his generals in charge of various industries (mainly oil production) and rampant corruption ensued. Tanking oil prices and no reinvestment in infrastructure only further exacerbated the decline. Maduro is nothing but a thug who blew the bottom out of an already sinking ship. Make no mistake, Venezuela was doomed from the day Chavez got in power.

Totally agree. I used to go to Venezuela (Lake Maracaibo). At that time, before Chavez, Venezuela was a thriving country with a great deal of American and other foreign investment in their oil industry. What Prolix said is spot on. 

sdanielmcev --- 135 days ago -

Socialism, in the most basic of terms, means that the government distributes the wealth among the people, and that the people, not wealthy individuals or corporations, control production and distribution of goods

No. That may be an idealistic description, but still false. 

sdanielmcev --- 135 days ago -

I?m not for socialism but using third world countries to make a point about the USA is ridiculous

Venezuela was not a third world country until Chavez. 

OrdinaryGuy --- 129 days ago -

 

roer de pot --- 129 days ago -

No. That may be an idealistic description, but still false.

No, it isn't. Don't confuse your opinion with facts.

Venezuela was not a third world country until Chavez.

The term Third World has nothing to do with development. It is a term carried over from the Cold War.

First World = capitalistic, industrial bloc aligned with the US after WWII

Second World = former communist-socialist states such as Russia and China

Third World = includes all others, including capitalist Venezuela and communist NK, very wealthy Saudi Arabia, and very poor Mali. 

OrdinaryGuy --- 128 days ago -

 

OrdinaryGuy --- 128 days ago -

BTW...a rose by any other name is still a rose! 

sdanielmcev --- 128 days ago -

No, it isn't. Don't confuse your opinion with facts

There is no government in socialism. 

sdanielmcev --- 128 days ago -

The term Third World has nothing to do with development. It is a term carried over from the Cold War.


While you are correct that it is the origin of the term, it has now come to mean any country that is struggling. Banana republic would have been a better term. Sorry for the transgression. 

sdanielmcev --- 128 days ago -

BTW, socialism is a form of economics, not governance. 

roer de pot --- 128 days ago -

BTW, socialism is a form of economics, not governance.

Once again, you are incorrect, and have a gross misunderstanding of what socialism is.

Socialism, at it's most basic definition, is both an economic and political theory that advocates for government control of production, and it's equally distributed among the people.

In a perfect world, socialism would assume that collectively, the people would exist in a cooperative state, but thanks to capitalism, everyone competes and therefore, the idea of socialism, especially here in the US, being successful is quite grim.

Government is at the heart of socialism. 

OrdinaryGuy --- 127 days ago -

 

sdanielmcev --- 127 days ago -

Once again, you are incorrect, and have a gross misunderstanding of what socialism is.

Au contraire. Because socialism is a form of economics and not governance, it is bound to fail, and why it always does fail without strong authoritarian governance; and then, is no longer socialism, as the public owns everything, police themselves, and workers are their own managers.
That is the main reason socialism is so misunderstood by the meek masses like you. They still want the government to be their nurse maid or butler.
And you statement, 'would assume that collectively, the people would exist in a cooperative state,' would and does contradict your definition.
Your own greed, a capitalist mainstay, belies your true intentions.
Your want of a social democracy, or nanny state, while recently being perverted into socialism, does not fit the concept. 

Emperor of Kingwood --- 127 days ago -

It seems to me that socialism is a economic theory of redistribution of wealth forced by government edict. Whereby, its implementation has to be through government whether freely elected or appointed by force. In the more common freely elected model, its voted in by the masses of lazy and under motivated that are jealous of those that have sacrificed immediate gratification for building a solid financial future. When the balance between the haves and have nots becomes unbalanced and the middle class erodes due to government mismanagement of the economy, then the have nots blame the haves (victim mentality)and force by government action to relieve them of their money. 

OrdinaryGuy --- 127 days ago -

^^^^^^^^^^
+1 

page 1
Login to add your comments!

see more discussions about...

politics


Online now:
hit counters

Terms of Service - Privacy Policy - Ice Box

Kingwood Underground