Trump Announces Bold New Socialist Program! Can You Say Venezuela?

There's no "if" and I know you are not so ignorant of the rheotric during Obama's Administration that routinely called him a socialist for passing penalites, subisidies, and strong regulations in the free market economy.

Not at all unlke what is being done today.

SO if people like me (and the president and his primary economic ) call tariffs an act of Socialism then that is true under Trump as much as Obama....and the same is true of subsidies...and regulations that alter corporate business decisions.

If you truly wish to call it something else then I will not object.  I simply object to people who call it a "cat" under one administration and a "dog" under another.   And lets be honest - that would encompass the overwhelming majority of Trump's base and Trump himself.

In the meantime, lets rermember your new definiton of socialism  the next time Kamala Harris or Bernie Sanders promotes taxes and penalties for the "socialist" Green New Deal.....I'll be interested to see if you and the board's conservatives will be able to call it something other than the "S" word.   (I already know the outcome.)

(edit to add.....Know nothing media sources referring to Trump tariffs as socialism:

Fortune      Business Insider    Bloomberg   )

I confess I find the replies in this thread fascinating in so many ways.

Charles said, “The real question is "Do you support the President's tough line on trading with China and if not, why not?" What it shouldn't be is some chicken shit oversimplification of the situation...Like "Republicans are Socialists".  But that may be too much to ask.”

I titled this thread the way I did to lampoon all the threads and posts that appear here frequently invoking Venezuela practically anytime a solution to a problem is purposed that goes against current Trumperian dogma.  Charles, I look forward to seeing you call out these frequent “chicken shit oversimplifications,” made by the conservative members here.  Since the President himself often invokes these same "chicken shit oversimplifications" I take it you won't be voting for him in 2020?

As to the point you made about tariffs, I don’t support them for the same reason I don’t support Trump trying to revive the coal industry. The time has passed for both. Wind and solar power are now cheaper than coal power.  Even if you don’t give a rats ass about clean air or global warming there is no reason to build new coal plants or continue to maintain the old ones because it is much more cost effective to generate energy through wind or solar. 

Turing to manufacturing, tariffs might have made a difference back in the 1980s and 1990s but human based manufacturing is never coming back to the U.S. Using iPhones as an example, the supply chain, the ability to build manufacturing plants that can accommodate a half a million employees, the ability force 7-day workweeks with 12 hour days and have the employees live on the plant grounds in highrise dorms with suicide nets is something you will never see in the U.S..  Unless U.S. citizens are willing to lower their standard of living to that of Chinese workers we will never be cost competitive even with tariffs. Secondly, automation is replacing even these low-cost employees. The future of manufacturing is automation, not humans. Just like with coal, Trump is trying to revive an industry(humans doing manufacturing) that is in its death throes.

Charles said, Like I started off...I do not think Socialism means what you think it means.  Trump or Obama's imposition of Tarriffs are not 'Socialist Policy'.  Socialist Policy would be one that pushes ownership and control of the means of production toward Government.  Socialism, Commnunism, Fascism, Capitalism....all the isms allow for trading nations to resist unfair trade practices by a competitor nation. 

There is no country that practices socialism using that definition. As I said in another thread, most countries, including ours, use a mix of socialism and capitalism.  What I do know is that the practice having people produce a product that there is not sufficient demand for, then buying that product to give away is more akin to the communist system where the economic activity is planned by the government rather than tied to supply and demand.

Charles said, I don't think you understand that so it's easier for you to just call Republicans hypocrites.  Of course a lot of them can't distinguish between economic systems and trade practices either so if they called Obama a Socailist because he was resisting unfair trade practices then they're just as wrong as you are.  That's not to say that Obama wasn't in fact a Socialist, it's just this isn't an example of it.

I do and that is why I am making fun of them. It is hypocrisy to call something socialism and chuckle Venezuela when a democrat purposes a policy and then when a Republican proposes a similar policy and someone calls it socialism they cry foul running to Wikipedia looking up socialism and saying well technically socialism requires the government ownership of the means of production so this policy isn't socialism.

Using that definition of socialism even Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan wouldn't be socialism because the government wouldn't own the hospitals. Yet every day it gets called socialized medicine by conservative politicians, the conservative media and even rank and file conservatives.  I guess conservatives are chicken shits?

Jack said, For 30 years, the world has bent over backwards to help bring China into the first world. Indeed, they are still given the benefits of a developing economy in the World Trade Organization despite being the 2nd biggest economy in the world.  Meanwhile the middle of the country has had its industrial base and unionized jobs pushed out of the country, by "free trade"policies to be replaced by Walmart Greeting type jobs.  Trump is merely replacing these previously misguided(and yes mostly republican, I hate to say)policies.  Don't know if it will work, but loss of manufacturing jobs in the United States and depencency on other, sometimes hostile countries, for goods, is not a good long term idea.

I certainly agree with the first point you made. It goes back way more than 30 years though. The British were the first to chase what I call the myth of the Chinese market. The thinking was the Chinese market is the largest in the world because of its population size, so we could make a ton of money there if only we had access to sell our shit in that market.  The British started going to China in the late 16th century. A couple of hundred years later and the British discovered they couldn't sell shit to the Chinese but that their own citizens sure were addicted to Chinese products leading to massive trade deficits. Faced with this ugly truth, the upstanding morally superior British capitalists decided to become drug dealers and hook Chinese citizens on opium. They had a successful run for a while but the Chinese government eventually realized a country full of opium addicts wasn't a good thing. They tried to kick the Britsh out but the Britsh went to war, won and forced the Chinese to sign a treaty allowing the Britsh to sell their opium in China. This treatment is what eventually led to China going communist.  

Now fast forward to the 20th century and a group of shit for brains American capitalists thought "If only I had access to the Chinese market to sell my products, I'd make a fortune." They quickly discovered the same thing the British had. That not only did the Chinese not want to buy their products but that their own citizens wanted to buy Chinese products instead. 

As I stated above, good-paying manufacturing jobs are never coming back to the U.S. There is nothing Trump or anybody else can do to change that and it is foolish to think we will ever be able to sell any manufactured product (other than food)in China in any great volume. We have 500 years of history as proof of that concept.    Trump's policies are hurting the one industry that produces a product that we can sell over there in volume. 

1.  You don't support Trumps tarriffs on China because "Human Based Manufacturing is never coming back to the US".    I support the tarrffs because it's clear to me we must change this one sided relationship and Tariffs may be our only option.  China's barriers to entry, IP theft, currency manipulation, and subsidies have put the US at a disadvantage in our trading relationship.  Even if you're right that Human Based Manufacturing is never coming back to the US, that's a pretty poor excuse for doing nothing about an uneven playing field and the 800 Million a year Trade Deficit with a Mercantilist competitor.  I think most Americans realize this and are willing to pay a little more for everything if it means not suffering the fate of Warren Buffet's Squanderville.  You really shoud read that article.

2.  I defined a 'Socialist Policy' as one that 'Pushes onwership and control of the means of production towards government'.  You said "There is no country in the world that practices socialism using that definition.  What world are you living in?  Most every country in the world has policies that promote government ownership or government control over the means of production including the USA.  The degree to which those policies are implemented determines just how Socialistic your country actually is. 

The funny part to me is that I keep saying that you obviously don't understand what I just wrote and you keep proving me right....because the Government implementing policies that try to fix the disadvantageous behavior of a trading partner is nuetral when it comes to this common definition of Socialst Policy.  It is neither socialist or capitalist.  It is simply protecting your people and buisness interests whether those businesse are controlled by corporations, individuals or government. 

The US Constitution gives Congress the power to collect duties.  Congress gave the President the power to assess Tariffs in certain sitations.   I don't see how you can claim the President acting within his constitutional authority to correct China's rogue trading practices is somehow inherently 'Socialist'.  But hey...you think you've got some kind of 'Gotcha' with a Republican Hypocrite angle. 

3.  You said:  "Using that definition of socialism even Bernie Sanders Medicare for all plan wouldn't be socialism because the government wouldn't own the hospitals. Yet millions of times a day it is called socialized medicine by conservative politicians, conservative media and even rank and file conservatives." 

First of all, I never defined 'Socialism' as anything.  I defined a 'Socialist Policy' as one that

My post was cut off.

Hmmm.  That's it for me.  My posts are disappearing.