New York City

[McDad]

When people say “socialism” in the U.S., they often mean anything with government intervention, but that’s not technically correct. True socialism involves the collective or state ownership of the means of production, not just taxing the wealthy or providing social services. What the New Deal and later programs represent is socially democratic reforms. So unless we’re talking about fully replacing capitalism, it’s more accurate to frame this as a debate about how far we’ve gone with social democracy, not socialism. But that’s just a matter of semantics.

Now, onto your point, yes, social spending has increased significantly since the New Deal. There’s no denying that programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have grown into pillars of the federal budget. But just looking at the dollar amounts doesn’t tell the full story. The more important question is how that money is spent and who it benefits.

In European countries with strong social democracies, programs are universal, things like healthcare, childcare, education, and unemployment benefits are available to everyone. That universality builds solidarity, reduces stigma, and makes the programs politically resilient. In the U.S., by contrast, most programs are means-tested, you only qualify if you’re below a certain income level. This approach often stigmatizes recipients, creates bureaucratic barriers, and weakens public support, because people don’t feel personally invested in programs they can’t access.

So even though America spends more on social programs now than in the 1930s, that doesn’t mean we’ve become more progressive in structure or intent. If anything, we’ve shifted away from universal social protections and toward a patchwork system that reinforces division and political vulnerability. The New Deal might not have been the high point in spending, but it arguably was the high point in universal vision, something we’ve steadily backed away from since.

Great conversation!

I read your post. You are discussing several things at once.
Socialism vis-á-vis:
- state ownership
- social spending itemization
- universal vs partial implementation
- intention

This seems unnecessary considering what you described (and what I agreed to) as socialism. And since you stated social democracy and socialism are semantics, we are OK using the terms interchangeably.

social democracy is a form of regulated capitalism that aims to reduce income inequality

In your articulate reply you noted how America is increasing our spending since the New deal. That spending is ostensibly in place to help those unable to help themselves and/or those on the bottom of income inequality. Correct? In our system, capitalism funds the majority of government spending so I see it as regulating capitalism because the money is paid in taxes and cannot go back into individual pursuits of capitalism. Additionally we have been outspending tax revenues for decades. I mention that because debt may not be considered an economic system so it may be separate from our convo.

Well all forms of capitalism in this world are regulated to a degree, so it is a spectrum.
....Our leftism peaked with the new deal, and since the rise of neoliberalism and later reagenomics we’ve shifted far more economically right as country.

And now that we have found consensus about post-New Deal spending, we can possibly agree America, at some point on the ideological spectrum, practices representative republic socialism.

The gap in our conversation, as I see it now, is where along the spectrum do we conclude socialism is here (universal vs partial implementation). If that is accurate, the points on state ownership, social spending itemization, and intention seem moot to me.

 

[McDad]

@Persian Vol. Apologies in advance for geeking out with our convo. I enjoy the exchange of ideas. If I am getting too overboard, just let me know.

 

[Vol8188]

When people say “socialism” in the U.S., they often mean anything with government intervention, but that’s not technically correct. True socialism involves the collective or state ownership of the means of production, not just taxing the wealthy or providing social services. What the New Deal and later programs represent is socially democratic reforms. So unless we’re talking about fully replacing capitalism, it’s more accurate to frame this as a debate about how far we’ve gone with social democracy, not socialism. But that’s just a matter of semantics.

Now, onto your point, yes, social spending has increased significantly since the New Deal. There’s no denying that programs like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid have grown into pillars of the federal budget. But just looking at the dollar amounts doesn’t tell the full story. The more important question is how that money is spent and who it benefits.

In European countries with strong social democracies, programs are universal, things like healthcare, childcare, education, and unemployment benefits are available to everyone. That universality builds solidarity, reduces stigma, and makes the programs politically resilient. In the U.S., by contrast, most programs are means-tested, you only qualify if you’re below a certain income level. This approach often stigmatizes recipients, creates bureaucratic barriers, and weakens public support, because people don’t feel personally invested in programs they can’t access.

So even though America spends more on social programs now than in the 1930s, that doesn’t mean we’ve become more progressive in structure or intent. If anything, we’ve shifted away from universal social protections and toward a patchwork system that reinforces division and political vulnerability. The New Deal might not have been the high point in spending, but it arguably was the high point in universal vision, something we’ve steadily backed away from since.

The counter argument to this is that the standard of living is still higher than the majority of those countries in the US. The only ones who are on par are normally the Nordic countries who have people earning around 60k as their highest tax bracket.

Do you think we should shift a massive chunk of our tax burden onto the middle class the way those countries have?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Great conversation!

I read your post. You are discussing several things at once.
Socialism vis-á-vis:
- state ownership
- social spending itemization
- universal vs partial implementation
- intention

This seems unnecessary considering what you described (and what I agreed to) as socialism. And since you stated social democracy and socialism are semantics, we are OK using the terms interchangeably.

In your articulate reply you noted how America is increasing our spending since the New deal. That spending is ostensibly in place to help those unable to help themselves and/or those on the bottom of income inequality. Correct? In our system, capitalism funds the majority of government spending so I see it as regulating capitalism because the money is paid in taxes and cannot go back into individual pursuits of capitalism. Additionally we have been outspending tax revenues for decades. I mention that because debt may not be considered an economic system so it may be separate from our convo.

And now that we have found consensus about post-New Deal spending, we can possibly agree America, at some point on the ideological spectrum, practices representative republic socialism.

The gap in our conversation, as I see it now, is where along the spectrum do we conclude socialism is here (universal vs partial implementation). If that is accurate, the points on state ownership, social spending itemization, and intention seem moot to me.

It would definitely be beneficial to tie agreed upon vocabulary with subjects of debate. 'Socialism' and 'capitalism' are generally seen as a continuum, so it may be of benefit to seek clarity on where exactly on the continuum folks find disagreement and heartburn. For instance, the staunchest capitalist would likely agree that a certain amount of oversight and regulation is needed. That same capitalist may possibly ask for the pragmatic\ethical\moral\legal arguments for redistribution of wealth (as one example).

It'll do little good to deny that
state owned production" and similar concepts are "not strict socialism" when that is npot necessarily the line of disagreement. It seem to me it does little good to bypass concepts in favor of semantic vocabulary.

If someone is going to enforce "paying your fair share", then you need to explain why your definition of "fair" should be enforced on and at the expense of one group of people, for the benefit of someone who didn't work for it. As one example of hopefully fruitful debate.

We can all get wrapped around the axle of gov't owned means, etc... Or we can talk about why it's fair to forcibly take wealth away from one group to give to another group that didn't work for it, as well as what overall greater affects that will have on the economy and population.

 

[Volfan8282]

Why millionaires are planning to escape from New York

The socialist Zohran Mamdani’s victory in the mayoral primary has prompted some of the wealthiest New Yorkers to seriously consider leaving the city

www.thetimes.com

 

[NashVol11]

I wouldn't say "praise" overall but it was indeed the right answer

 

[just bob]

I wouldn't say "praise" overall but it was indeed the right answer

Run it right into the ground. lmao

 

[Vol8188]

I wouldn't say "praise" overall but it was indeed the right answer

Once Tucker joins, you know you’re on the wrong side of any argument. Tucker has long had an affinity for Bernie Sanders policies

 

[NashVol11]

Once Tucker joins, you know you’re on the wrong side of any argument. Tucker has long had an affinity for Bernie Sanders policies

Yes, the "right side" of the argument is every mayor of an American city constantly showering Israel with over-the-top praise

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, the "right side" of the argument is every mayor of an American city constantly showering Israel with over-the-top praise

Wasnt it you who was annoyed that they were even asked about Israel given their running for NYC Mayor?

Now it’s a major selling point?

 

[NashVol11]

Wasnt it you who was annoyed that they were even asked about Israel given their running for NYC Mayor?

Now it’s a major selling point?

Who said "major selling point?" Those positions aren't even remotely inconsistent, the demand for an NYC mayor to pledge fealty to Israel is stupid and not doing so was absolutely correct

 

[Vol8188]

Who said "major selling point?" Those positions aren't even remotely inconsistent, the demand for an NYC mayor to pledge fealty to Israel is stupid and not doing so was absolutely correct

So you were upset it was brought up, but now, you’re bringing it up? Either it matters or it doesn’t. You seem to be saying it doesn’t matter, but behaving as if it does

 

[NashVol11]

So you were upset it was brought up, but now, you’re bringing it up? Either it matters or it doesn’t. You seem to be saying it doesn’t matter, but behaving as if it does

Bad question, good answer. Not complicated and not something you should be able to even try to dishonestly distort into some gotcha but you never stop doing it

 

[McDad]

It would definitely be beneficial to tie agreed upon vocabulary with subjects of debate. 'Socialism' and 'capitalism' are generally seen as a continuum, so it may be of benefit to seek clarity on where exactly on the continuum folks find disagreement and heartburn. For instance, the staunchest capitalist would likely agree that a certain amount of oversight and regulation is needed. That same capitalist may possibly ask for the pragmatic\ethical\moral\legal arguments for redistribution of wealth (as one example).

It'll do little good to deny that
state owned production" and similar concepts are "not strict socialism" when that is npot necessarily the line of disagreement. It seem to me it does little good to bypass concepts in favor of semantic vocabulary.

If someone is going to enforce "paying your fair share", then you need to explain why your definition of "fair" should be enforced on and at the expense of one group of people, for the benefit of someone who didn't work for it. As one example of hopefully fruitful debate.

We can all get wrapped around the axle of gov't owned means, etc... Or we can talk about why it's fair to forcibly take wealth away from one group to give to another group that didn't work for it, as well as what overall greater affects that will have on the economy and population.

Agreed.
And to his credit Persian is thoughtfully discussing the concepts. It's no surprise, I lean heavily "capitalism" in my worldview.
To affirm what you said, I do not want unbridled capitalism to the detriment of environment, people, and shared resources.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Agreed.
And to his credit Persian is thoughtfully discussing the concepts. It's no surprise, I lean heavily "capitalism" in my worldview.
To affirm what you said, I do not want unbridled capitalism to the detriment of environment, people, and shared resources.

I like @Persian Vol, though I don't always agree with him. I don't even begrudge him defending his homeland in the Iran thread. Lord knows, I can agree with him that the US has not done ourselves any favors in the ME, with all the deuces we've dropped on their proverbial carpets.

 

[SpaceCoastVol]

Lol you think the millionaires are moving to Rochester? Alright

Who knows. If they are attacked strongly enough by the city government, they will go away. Rochester, Syracuse, Auburn... or they have the workaround or are just dumb lemmings.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Who is John Galt?

 

[McDad]

I like @Persian Vol, though I don't always agree with him. I don't even begrudge him defending his homeland in the Iran thread. Lord knows, I can agree with him that the US has not done ourselves any favors in the ME, with all the deuces we've dropped on their proverbial carpets.

This forum gets a bad rep because people say we don't like people who disagree. I think we actually don't like disagreeable people.
Like you, I find Persian to be an agreeable poster with whom I disagree occassionally.

 

[Orange_Crush]

This forum gets a bad rep because people say we don't like people who disagree. I think we actually don't like disagreeable people.
Like you, I find Persian to be an agreeable poster with whom I disagree occassionally.

A LOT of the posters in here just don't like people who disagree effectively.

 

[NEO]

Between 2019 and 2023 over 130 businesses left NYC that had over 1 trillion in assets. They moved to Texas, TN, and FL.

This will just cause more of this.

 

[Majors]

Between 2019 and 2023 over 130 businesses left NYC that had over 1 trillion in assets. They moved to Texas, TN, and FL.

This will just cause more of this.

Amazon tried to help.

 

[NEO]

Don't threaten me with a good time

View attachment 751084

The cost to rent business space in NYC is roughly 96 per sq ft. To compare, Nashville is roughly 22 to 34.

This means a 1000 sq ft fast food restaurant cost 96,000 a year in rent in NYC. In Nashville it is 22000.

Now let’s go with 30 minimum wage which after payroll taxes is now roughly 35. Hire 4 full time employees and your at $291,200.

In NYC you are now at 387,200 in overhead and you haven’t paid a single utility or purchased stock. Utilies and the cost to have the hoods professionally cleaned and inspected will be another 40k easy. Your now at 427,200 in overhead.

That means you have to sell 98 meals at day at 12 a meal just to pay basic overhead.

That is not sustainable.

99 percent of small business owners are not millionaires. They make somewhere between 85k and 150k. All this will do is cause them to close, stop hiring, or move.

 

[Orangeburst]

This forum gets a bad rep because people say we don't like people who disagree. I think we actually don't like disagreeable people.
Like you, I find Persian to be an agreeable poster with whom I disagree occassionally.

no we dont

 

[Persian Vol]

Great conversation!

I read your post. You are discussing several things at once.
Socialism vis-á-vis:
- state ownership
- social spending itemization
- universal vs partial implementation
- intention

This seems unnecessary considering what you described (and what I agreed to) as socialism. And since you stated social democracy and socialism are semantics, we are OK using the terms interchangeably.

In your articulate reply you noted how America is increasing our spending since the New deal. That spending is ostensibly in place to help those unable to help themselves and/or those on the bottom of income inequality. Correct? In our system, capitalism funds the majority of government spending so I see it as regulating capitalism because the money is paid in taxes and cannot go back into individual pursuits of capitalism. Additionally we have been outspending tax revenues for decades. I mention that because debt may not be considered an economic system so it may be separate from our convo.

And now that we have found consensus about post-New Deal spending, we can possibly agree America, at some point on the ideological spectrum, practices representative republic socialism.

The gap in our conversation, as I see it now, is where along the spectrum do we conclude socialism is here (universal vs partial implementation). If that is accurate, the points on state ownership, social spending itemization, and intention seem moot to me.

Even so, I don’t think there really is a gap, it’s a matter of semantics.

 

[Persian Vol]

Agreed.
And to his credit Persian is thoughtfully discussing the concepts. It's no surprise, I lean heavily "capitalism" in my worldview.
To affirm what you said, I do not want unbridled capitalism to the detriment of environment, people, and shared resources.

I think we can all agree that capitalism is necessary, it’s just a matter of acknowledging legitimate flaws and ways to account for that while still retaining the system.