Why Does Socialism Have a Negative Connotation?

[Thundercrack85]

How gay marriage can be mainstream in a country that still elects such fundamentally conservative people is rather mind boggling.

Then again, a lot of it has to do with regionalization. Though Michelle Bachmann and Al Franken being elected by the same state... just defies all logic.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Dominated? Pretty sure Republicans have nominated a moderate Republican for President the last two election cycles and previously had elected a moderate Republican for President. Tea Party gets headlines because of idiots like Ted Cruz and the tactics they used. Meanwhile the Democratic Party rid themselves of the Blue Dogs the more moderate faction of the party.

Mitt Romney wash't a moderate by the time he won the nomination. Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry saw to that. That was part of why he lost.

John McCain would be a better example... but then he nominated Sarah Palin.

The Democratic party doesn't need Blue Dogs. The rank and file Democrats are middle of the road. Obama is practically a Republican from twenty years ago.

 

[DaddlerTheDalek]

 

[hippie_hunter]

Mitt Romney wash't a moderate by the time he won the nomination. Rick Santorum, Herman Cain, and Rick Perry saw to that. That was part of why he lost.

Romney's loss really had nothing to do with how far to the right he was forced to go during the primaries. He lost because he was a terrible candidate who ran a terrible campaign and went up against the EXTREMELY efficient Obama team.

The Democratic party doesn't need Blue Dogs.

Yes they do. The Democrats giving the middle finger to the Blue Dogs has essentially killed the Democratic Party in the South and pretty much cost them from getting the House for at least a decade.

The rank and file Democrats are middle of the road. Obama is practically a Republican from twenty years ago.

Pretty sure that Republicans twenty years ago were against Hillarycare, gay marriage, etc. They're still the same party that reformed 20 years ago. And that there lies the problem.

 

[Thundercrack85]

Part of what made Romney a terrible candidate – granted there's no lack of reasons, but this was a pivotal one – was him trying to out Tea Party the Ricks and Michelle Bachmann, by affiliating himself with the likes of Joe Arapaio, and pandering to anti-gay and xenophobic hate groups.

The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. Same with cap and trade, same with, actually here's a list:

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/08/...oved-until-barack-obama-became-president.html

Perhaps 30 years is more accurate than 20, but point stands. Obama is yesterday's moderate Republican. Sans gay marriage, obviously.

Blue Dogs were done one way or another. Well actually, there are still some left.

 

[The Question]

On the subject of socialism (and why I think it get's an underserved bad reputation): Back in the 70s, the Canadian government experimented with total socialism, selecting one town in Manitoba where the citizens received a guaranteed and unconditional annual income from the government. This experimented lasted over a five year period, and the results came out strongly in favor of it being a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

http://archive.irpp.org/po/archive/jan01/hum.pdf

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf

http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/2614818-consider-guaranteed-annual-income-to-reduce-poverty/

http://basicincome.org.uk/interview/2013/08/health-forget-mincome-poverty/

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...ty_success_airbrushed_out.html?app=noRedirect

 

[summerteeth]

On the subject of socialism (and why I think it get's an underserved bad reputation): Back in the 70s, the Canadian government experimented with total socialism, selecting one town in Manitoba where the citizens received a guaranteed and unconditional annual income from the government. This experimented lasted over a five year period, and the results came out strongly in favor of it being a good idea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

http://archive.irpp.org/po/archive/jan01/hum.pdf

http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/ssrgai.htm

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea (2).pdf

http://www.therecord.com/opinion-story/2614818-consider-guaranteed-annual-income-to-reduce-poverty/

http://basicincome.org.uk/interview/2013/08/health-forget-mincome-poverty/

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/edit...ty_success_airbrushed_out.html?app=noRedirect

Looks to me like this was an experiment about whether the negative income tax would work, which is not total socialism. It essentially takes the benefits would receive from various welfare programs like food stamps, medicare etc and gives them cash value instead. This is a free market approach to helping the poor and the needy. It was something that Milton Friedman was a huge advocate of, and he was certainly no socialist. Here he is talking about it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

What percentage of tax revenue go to welfare queens, really?

Doesn't most of it go to the elderly, the working poor, the disabled, and the military?

So why are people constantly complaining about taxes going to lazy people? It's such a small percentage of our budget that goes to lazy people who refuse to work yet it's always central to the "lower taxes" argument.

 

[Kelly]

I do not think that we should simply forget about those that are truly in need of help to get back on their feet. But, I think we do need to revisit what the purpose of these programs are for, what do we want the results to be, and look at the direction we are going with these programs...because I do not believe that we are getting the results from these programs that we put them in place to move towards. In fact, I think we are going the opposite direction as I see the numbers grow. That, to me, has nothing to do with an argument about fraud.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

I do not think that we should simply forget about those that are truly in need of help to get back on their feet. But, I think we do need to revisit what the purpose of these programs are for, what do we want the results to be, and look at the direction we are going with these programs...because I do not believe that we are getting the results from these programs that we put them in place to move towards. In fact, I think we are going the opposite direction as I see the numbers grow. That, to me, has nothing to do with an argument about fraud.

Poverty plummets once a country introduces a welfare system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty

I don't think it's a coincidence.

 

[Kelly]

Poverty plummets once a country introduces a welfare system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty

I don't think it's a coincidence.

What has happened in the last 14 years?

 

[wiegeabo]

Poverty plummets once a country introduces a welfare system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty

I don't think it's a coincidence.

Introduces an effective welfare system, maybe.

I'm not sure ours qualifies as such. Or if it does, but other factors keep putting too much burden on it.

 

[summerteeth]

Poverty plummets once a country introduces a welfare system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare's_effect_on_poverty

I don't think it's a coincidence.

I think you would have to look into it more. That's a measurement of 40% of the median income. Typically you see lower median incomes in more socialist democratic states, so the income that would have been considered at the absolute poverty rate is much lower. The question would be what effect is this having? Are median incomes growing at the same rate as they were prior to these welfare programs? The poverty rate set by the U.S. government (i.e. the money needed to afford essential items) really has not changed all that much since the implementation of broader welfare programs.

 

[Warhammer]

I'm glad this thread was a success. I have learned a lot from reading these posts.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Part of what made Romney a terrible candidate – granted there's no lack of reasons, but this was a pivotal one – was him trying to out Tea Party the Ricks and Michelle Bachmann, by affiliating himself with the likes of Joe Arapaio, and pandering to anti-gay and xenophobic hate groups.

While the primaries certainly didn't help Romney, it still doesn't change the fact that being forced to lurch to the right really didn't have anything to do with him losing. He lost because he was outmatched and out-organized by the Obama re-election team. He lost because his campaigning skills were just utterly horrible (foot in mouth syndrome, trying to come off as an everyday guy, etc.).

The individual mandate was originally a Republican idea. Same with cap and trade, same with, actually here's a list:

http://www.eclectablog.com/2013/08/...oved-until-barack-obama-became-president.html

To say that the individual mandate was beloved by Republicans is an absolutely false notion and requires a sense of revisionist history. The individual mandate was something that was developed by the Heritage Foundation to try and counter Hillarycare and something the Clinton Administration eventually embraced. However, Republican opposition to Hillarycare, killed the individual mandate. And people love to bring up Romneycare, but neglect to mention how Romney had to develop health care reform in Massachusetts with the Democrats.

You also fail to take into account that things change over the course of 20 years. While the GOP is still the Contract with America GOP, it has lurched more towards the right. While a chunk of Republicans and conservative groups supported the individual mandate back in the 1990's, most of those Republicans are now gone and those groups have new leadership (like Jim DeMint being in charge of the Heritage Foundation).

Perhaps 30 years is more accurate than 20, but point stands. Obama is yesterday's moderate Republican. Sans gay marriage, obviously.

Again, just no. Especially in an era when the Democratic Party is becoming more and more progressive. Obama is a pragmatic man. But people need to stop mixing pragmatic with moderate. Asides from foreign policy, there is really nothing at all Republican about Obama's ideology. Any "conservative" ideas he had to take on, simply came to be because he really had no choice when he has been forced to work with the Republicans on deficit reduction and whatnot.

Blue Dogs were done one way or another.

They were finished off because the progressive wing of the party essentially threw them under the bus. It's the exact same thing that happened to the Rockefeller Republicans. People like to focus on how the Tea Party has forced out many moderate Republicans and forced the GOP to go more rightward, but they completely ignore how the grassroots progressive movement is doing the exact same thing with the Democratic Party.

Well actually, there are still some left.

Barely. And we're going to lose more in the midterms. The only thing keeping the Blue Dogs on life support today is Obama being a Blue Dog when it comes to fiscal matters.

 

[hippie_hunter]

Jeez Hippie keep up talking like that and you'll ruin the image us peons have of mods being big dumb jerks.

No, I'm just a big smart jerk

 

[SV Fan]

While the primaries certainly didn't help Romney, it still doesn't change the fact that being forced to lurch to the right really didn't have anything to do with him losing. He lost because he was outmatched and out-organized by the Obama re-election team. He lost because his campaigning skills were just utterly horrible (foot in mouth syndrome, trying to come off as an everyday guy, etc.)

I have to think this statement cost him 4-5% of the latino vote

[YT]OvUM-uNWGX4[/YT]

Now would that have made the difference in winning or losing? Probably not but lurking to the right on a lot of issues definitely cost him alot of votes

 

[hippie_hunter]

I have to think this statement cost him 4-5% of the latino vote

[YT]OvUM-uNWGX4[/YT]

Now would that have made the difference in winning or losing? Probably not but lurking to the right on a lot of issues definitely cost him alot of votes

I certainly agree that Romney's forced lurch to the right did not help him one bit in the general election. But in the end, it doesn't matter one bit. If Romney had a competent campaign team, they could have handled Romney's mishaps.

Meanwhile, the Obama re-election team was filled with an army of mini-Nate Silvers, excellent demographic organizers, and brilliant political strategists. Dare I say that it's the best campaign team ever assembled. The Obama team bamboozled not only the Romney team, but professional polling firms that essentially wrote Florida, Virginia, and Colorado off for Obama and portrayed Pennsylvania as more competitive than it actually was. While everyone was focused on the Latino vote, the Obama team got the African-American vote to come out in even larger numbers than they did in 2008 in the vital states like Florida and Virginia (effectively handing him those states).

Even if Romney became more "moderate" like many on the left say he should have done, he still wasn't going to beat the incredibly organized and brilliantly executed Obama campaign strategy. Frankly, I think the only people who could have beaten Obama in 2008 were either Mitch Daniels or Chris Christie (because they would have brought the organization in with them), and they opted not to run.

 

[SV Fan]

I certainly agree that Romney's forced lurch to the right did not help him one bit in the general election. But in the end, it doesn't matter one bit. If Romney had a competent campaign team, they could have handled Romney's mishaps.

A competent campaign team would realize having Mitt say stuff to pander to the extreme right was a huge mistake. If they would have made every issue about the economy they would have had a fighting chance no matter how good Obama's team was squeezing out every vote possible. By aligning yourself with the Republican party he basically got everybody who hates the Republican party excited to vote, he would have been much better to lull Obama voters to sleep being pragmatic and sounding reasonable

Meanwhile, the Obama re-election team was filled with an army of mini-Nate Silvers, excellent demographic organizers, and brilliant political strategists. Dare I say that it's the best campaign team ever assembled. The Obama team bamboozled not only the Romney team, but professional polling firms that essentially wrote Florida, Virginia, and Colorado off for Obama and portrayed Pennsylvania as more competitive than it actually was. While everyone was focused on the Latino vote, the Obama team got the African-American vote to come out in even larger numbers than they did in 2008 in the vital states like Florida and Virginia (effectively handing him those states).

It should be pointed out (and I know you hate these guys) but PPP's robopolling was near perfect

 

[hippie_hunter]

A competent campaign team would realize having Mitt say stuff to pander to the extreme right was a huge mistake. If they would have made every issue about the economy they would have had a fighting chance no matter how good Obama's team was squeezing out every vote possible.

I'm going to try to sound as least dickish as possible when saying this but.....this is pretty much why you aren't running a campaign. Successful campaigns really don't come down to ideology. All ideology really does is just simply motivate the core base (the people who aren't going to switch parties anyways) and grassroots activists (the Tea Partiers and Occupiers). The only way ideology gets in the way for a candidate is if they're a massive extremist (like Greece's Golden Dawn or a Communist) or if the candidate is so blinded by ideology that they turn into a big pile of heaping stupid (like Todd Akin or Michelle Bachmann).

Successful campaigns all come down to organization. Organization, organization, organization. I really can't stress this point enough because that is how essential organization is to victory. An effective organization is essentially 95% of the reason why a candidate wins. The Obama campaign was so brilliantly organized, that there was essentially nothing Romney could do in order to beat him. It was just compounded by how badly organized the Romney campaign was in the end. By the time Romney's family (particularly his son Tagg and wife Ann) took over the campaign operation from the incompetent Stuart Stevens and Matt Rhoades and started to put out a more effective organization and strategy, it was too little, too late.

As I said before, the only candidates I think that could have beaten Obama were Indiana's Mitch Daniels (a favorite of the GOP establishment and was the preferred candidate of the GOP chieftains like John Boehner, Haley Barbour, and the Bushes) and New Jersey's Chris Christie (a favorite of the GOP mega-donors). They would have brought in the organization, resources, and strategy that was necessary to counter the Obama team.

By aligning yourself with the Republican party he basically got everybody who hates the Republican party excited to vote, he would have been much better to lull Obama voters to sleep being pragmatic and sounding reasonable

The Republican brand isn't as toxic as you're acting like it is

It should be pointed out (and I know you hate these guys) but PPP's robopolling was near perfect

Personally I found myself shocked by PPP's accuracy. Typically they're pretty damn off, but they've been on a roll lately.

 

[SV Fan]

The Republican brand isn't as toxic as you're acting like it is

It helped rally single women(abortion, calling them out on fair pay, etc) and minorities(immigration rhetoric, voting ID Laws, etc) because nothing Obama did in his 4 years was rally worthy. There is a reason why 95%+ African American's and 70%+ Latinos vote Democrat and it's not because they have such a great track record of doing stuff for them(lately).

The Republican Party for the past 40 years indirectly have told people if you aren't a married white christian or rich as hell, you aren't really welcome here.

 

[SV Fan]

Personally I found myself shocked by PPP's accuracy. Typically they're pretty damn off, but they've been on a roll lately.

Most places in 2012 underestimated how many young people and minorities would turn out, I am guessing whatever system PPP was using to gauge it's results accounted for that much better.

 

[hippie_hunter]

It helped rally single women(abortion, calling them out on fair pay, etc) and minorities(immigration rhetoric, voting ID Laws, etc) because nothing Obama did in his 4 years was rally worthy. There is a reason why 95%+ African American's and 70%+ Latinos vote Democrat and it's not because they have such a great track record of doing stuff for them(lately).

More like how excellent at demographic targeting the Obama campaign team was.

The Republican Party for the past 40 years indirectly have told people if you aren't a married white christian or rich as hell, you aren't really welcome here.

That's how the Democrats and liberal media like to portray the GOP as.

 

[The Silent Traveler]

The term, Socialism, itself is a scary word for the majority of Americans. Socialism equalizes with Communism which is not entirely true in Americans' eyes. I'm sure that most of Americans oppose with Obamacare which is thought to be burden on small businesses/corporations to pay their healthcare on their employees. Yet I have mixed feelings about Obamacare. I want to make sure that everyone who have no or a little bit insurance to be provided by free healthcare. At the same time, small businesses and corporations are forced to pay their healthcare.

Anyways, socialism works well in Scandinavian countries. I wonder why that doesn't work well in America. It's bizarre how socialism fails in America despite it's the richest country in the world. I support socialism because I believe that everyone should deserve their free healthcare and pursue their higher education despite their socioeconomic status.

 

[TheBat812]

It doesn't work here because the American people are pretty brainwashed in regards to the "free market" and the illusion of the American Dream. This becomes obvious when many of the hypocrites who use entitlement programs to their benefit because they're available but ***** and moan about it being an abused un-American system start screaming about how freeing the market will yield the best result based on principle. It can be a great system, but needs regulation to avoid what's happened - the business world essentially owning our government.

But the biggest problem with socialism is both ourselves and the immense size of our populus - which has become so huge that no pre-existing system was meant to handle. We need to be less stringent on labels and forge a path into the future that's designed to sustain the future, not rely on and fear outdated information and definitions.