Democrats and Socialism

[CaptainObvious]

We directly elect or presidents, unlike parliamentary systems that have to form a government. Our structure ensures a two party system. There is no place for independents.

LOL. People who identify as politically independent are growing in number and outpace both democrats and republicans by a very large margin.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx

 

[UsualName]

LOL. People who identify as politically independent are growing in number and outpace both democrats and republicans by a very large margin.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/225056/americans-identification-independents-back-2017.aspx

Lots of people identify as independent and still vote for only one party all the time.

There is something to having a parliamentary system but there is also drawbacks. Look at Israel. The Likud government is controlled by a minority party to stay in power. Groups like the freedom caucus would have extreme amounts of power because they don’t care if they crash the country into the ground.

 

[TJustice]

You mean groups like the Freedom Caucus are attempting to prevent further extraction of assets and destruction of our country by the cronies who own the democrats and establishment republicans.

If you don't believe me ask yourself would what you be calling a politician who espoused JFK's positions. He is to the right of the establishment, not even close to today's democrats.

Lots of people identify as independent and still vote for only one party all the time.

There is something to having a parliamentary system but there is also drawbacks. Look at Israel. The Likud government is controlled by a minority party to stay in power. Groups like the freedom caucus would have extreme amounts of power because they don’t care if they crash the country into the ground.

 

[Cuddles]

Yeah, that's what I was saying when I typed:

"You could argue there is slight increased economic activity, but you'd then have to include any federal infrastructure and other projects as well. It's not welfare."
​

Additionally, your link points to pension payments as economic activity, which is fine. Do you consider pension payments welfare?? That's like including Social Security in welfare considerations, which is ridiculous.

Federal infrastructure generally has an inter-state windfall....ie; highways/waterways. I just don't understand how you can't see that servicemen salaries/pensions is redistributing tax dollars to localized areas. I don't understand how someone can dispute that an elevated income results in a more stable society w/less crime and less governmental spending to combat it, higher education achievements and less governmental spending to get there, higher consumption and less governmental spending to stimulate the local economy.

All that, and the tax payer who is not in those areas is not getting anything in return which makes the notion of a government "salary" farcical. The government isn't putting out goods or a for-profit service (USPS) and refunding the tax payer. Sure you can argue that protection is a service....one that is overpriced by a factor of 20 by my estimation.

 

[Tsing Tao]

Federal infrastructure generally has an inter-state windfall....ie; highways/waterways. I just don't understand how you can't see that servicemen salaries/pensions is redistributing tax dollars to localized areas. I don't understand how someone can dispute that an elevated income results in a more stable society w/less crime and less governmental spending to combat it, higher education achievements and less governmental spending to get there, higher consumption and less governmental spending to stimulate the local economy.

All that, and the tax payer who is not in those areas is not getting anything in return which makes the notion of a government "salary" farcical. The government isn't putting out goods or a for-profit service (USPS) and refunding the tax payer. Sure you can argue that protection is a service....one that is overpriced by a factor of 20 by my estimation.

I don't disagree that all of this results in economic activity. I disagree that this is welfare.

The job of the federal government is to provide national defense, which includes a standing army (for example). We can discuss whether their defense mandate is being correctly applied, or if it is bloated and over spent (I think you and I would agree on these points) but the spending for military defense is not welfare.

If you're going to call it so, then you need to consider that all Federal Spending and economic activity, regardless of what it is for and why it is done is also welfare, and Washington D.C., and the surrounding area probably gets the biggest welfare of all! This is not accurate, in my opinion.