Not that I want to join in the fray, but.....

I have a question about your statement: "...people democratically control the socialist government..." by definition this cannot exist. If the people control the government it cannot, by definition be a Socialist government. A Socialist government, by definition, cannot be controlled by the people. That is why it usually takes an overthrow of the government to get rid of the Socialist government/tyrant. If the people democratically control the government then they can just vote out the people in power. That is why I believe there cannot be a "Democratic Socialist". It is a made up phrase like most of the other phrases and lies the left makes up. It is a PC term. It is by the very definition an oxymoron.

I believe (And I could be wrong) that this term or phrase was invented to try and ease the thinking of the general public to eventually accept Socialism as a way of life/government. It is why the left makes up these silly phrases. Like "Assault Weapon". Don't fall into this PC way of thinking. It will eventually come back to bite you in the ass. It is quite obvious to me that the left is trying to remake and move this country to Socialism. Because all of the people you vote in to office are corrupt. And the absolute amount of power a politician can have is to be in complete control. Which is why Socialism owns and controls everything. The person or persons who control the government has the power. By taking it slowly and one baby step at a time they are trying to control the way the people think towards Socialism so eventually in 20 or 30 or 50 years we will be accepting of the "Democrat Socialist" and eventually the Democrat part will be dropped. JMHO 

You say that a socialist government cannot be controlled by the people, who then controls the government? I don't think socialism means you do away with democratically elected government officials, it doesn't mean you lose your voice in public.

That's pretty close to 'Murica.

With the Wall Street bail out, auto industry bail out, farmer subsidies, EPA, drill or not to drill, how much you can charge for health care, etc. decisions all laying with the govment.

At what point do we admit we have Democratic Socialism as our govment system ?

When  the government also decides how much each person receives to live on regardless of the their marketability or entrepreneurial efforts.

Well said Ed.

Called taxes. The super wealthy are smart enough to get around them. ( eg: Mitt Romney )

Obamacare. Socialized medicine

Makes me feel better.

At least now I know we're not headed down a Socialist path and there are no Socialist candidates.
 

Aloha Mauidog,

You commented: "So, now the political leaders you elected Democratically are in charge of the economy, rewarding those they judge are playing by their rules, and punishing those who do not.  They are also planning what industries we need, and what we should be trading to obtain from other nations."

This sounds like what any responsible government should be doing.


You also commented: "In theory, you might be able to replace politicians who make bad economic decisions, but when they have the power to save or destroy entire industries, who is going to go against them?  The labor unions, who supposedly represent the people, will back whichever candidate promises the most in raises and benefits.  That is going to be the majority voting block."

Doesn't any government regardless of political ideology have that power or should have that power?  Also, if you believe in a true democracy, labor unions using their numbers to influence elections is exactly what is suppose to happen.


You commented: "It's the same thing we see today.  Trying to repackage the failed economic policies of Socialism by bundling it it with "New and Improved" Democratic rule is a sham."

Your analysis of the current situation is very accurate, but In your words then, what would be the ideal situation?


Kuleana

At heart, socialism lies in state control; it has nothing to do with the nation's poor.

In practice, yes this is true, but the ideological foundation of Marxism, socialism, and communism has always based their motivations on alleviating the economic plight of the masses.

Have you ever met someone who was on the shit stick end of society in the USSR? You know, that country that had Socialist in it's name? I've met many more who were poor and on the lower spectrum of the class scale, and they never felt that their interests were looked out for.

Did Nazi's have the poor at mind when they rose to power? Socialist was in their name too.

Did Mussolini's government have the poor's interests in mind?

What about China, who has proclaimed since the 1930's that they are a socialist government working towards communism? Pretty sure they don't have the poor's interest in mind; especially up until they embraced a form of neo-capitalism after Mao's failed plans.


All of the major countries that declared themselves socialist proved that their primary focus was on developing a strong centralized government that held all the influence over it's citizens.


Finally, if socialism is so perfect, why did so many people flee socialist governments to come to America?

Particularly after its own industrial revolution, the US Government made a conscious effort to leave the road to immigration open.  Not because they wanted to offer more people the chance of the American Dream, but to flood its labor market to gain cheap labor as still practiced today with the apparent open-border policy via Mexico.

I disagree.  In a capitalist economic system, the market dictates what industries thrive and what goods and services are best brought in from other nations.

The role of the government is not to pick and choose winners, but to create a level playing field, free of unfair business practices and monopolistic companies which prevent new companies form entering an industry market.  the "Capital Cronyism" you hear about is anything but capitalism.  It's quasi-Socialism, where the government sticks it's nose in the economy where it doesn't belong.

I agree with your premise of what the role of government should be; however, your term quasi-socialism is questionable.  We must remember that the crony capitalism the US has been facing for quite sometime was brought about by the finance capitalist elites, which with their money bought control of the government.  These individuals who own the US Government are not socialist in any shape or form; they are ruthless capitalists.  Hence, it is more accurate to say the US economic system is quasi-capitalist because those who do control are capitalists, despite the lame attempts of the welfare state of their bought and paid for government stooges.


Did you know that during the first term of Obama, more money was made speculating on who would be bailed out than from actual growth of companies that weren't needing bailouts?  That's just wrong on many levels.

I agree.


There are certain things the government must do to ensure a stable infrastructure, such as regulate utilities, punish major polluters/environmentally destructive practices and evaluate/adjust market interest rates in times of economic distress.  Other than that, the government should get out of the way and let the buyers, sellers and investors determine the prices, what products and services are to be offered, and what market risks and consequences they are willing to accept.

I agree again with your statement above, but you do know of course that true capitalism dictates no government interference whatsoever.


Take a look at Singapore. They adopted the free market model the US used to use, and they are thriving very well. 

Don't forget that the miracle of Singapore was a result of the policies of Lew Kwan Yew, who was a dictator.


We've transitioned to a mostly services-oriented economy with very little manufacturing compared to the last century.  Those jobs are now being done in Mexico, Singapore, Egypt, China, and many other countries.

How many union jobs in manufacturing do we have now in the US?  Many have priced themselves out of the market.  Their costs drive up the final costs of goods beyond what the market is able to bear.  Meanwhile, it's cheaper to import those goods from locations with much cheaper labor.

In Hawaii, I hear of 3 unions constantly:  Gov't Employees, Teachers, and Longshoremen.  None of these unions are part of manufacturing.  They are purely services related.  I find it difficult to believe that these jobs require organization to get fair treatment.  What I have seen first- and second-hand are new employees getting pink slips right after the Governor signed a new state employee's union contract.  They got raises and more benefits, but at the cost of losing a percentage of jobs.  The budget is just so big, and there isn't enough to do more for all employees long term.

I agree wholeheartedly, as I have on more than one thread stated that Hawaii's local economy is not sustainable and will collapse if the federal government ends its spending in Hawaii.


The one area that's difficult to say whether government has a role or not is agriculture (aside from FDA).  If we allow the market to dictate prices, large buyers can manipulate prices.  Subsidies have proven to help keep crop prices from being driven too far down, but the problem is, once a subsidy is created, it never seems to go away.  There are news anchors who bought peanut farms and were making money off all us tax payers because half a century ago, the subsidies were create to pay farmers to NOT GROW ANY peanuts.  Keeping the supply low artificially kept the price up for the actual peanut farmers.  That subsidy was on 60 minutes back in the 80s and still exists now.

Over 12 million immigrants were processed through Ellis Island.

Prior to 1890, states regulated immigration into the United States. Castle Garden in the Battery (originally Castle Clinton) served as the
immigration station for the State of New York -- from 1855 to 1890 -- serving approximately eight million immigrants before closing.

After World War I, the United States began establishing embassies all over the world and the processing of immigrants occurred in
their home countries instead of Ellis Island, which was eventually phased out of use.

We need to remember the people we are talking about granting amnesty to are illegal immigrants, not those who entered the US legally.

True, but I was referring to the potential millions of illegal immigrants that have been smuggled into the US many decades prior to the Obama Administration.  All of those illegals were seeking a new life, while their subsequent employers were looking to sidestep the unionized American worker.