New Democratic Party Logo

[BlueSky]

I'm pretty sure Scandinavian countries operate on a socialist system and have a higher standard of living than the US (who's economy is right now BTW). Capitalism is far from perfect and extremism is always .

While Socialism is tied with communism that doesn't mean it's always inevitable.

Also, I love how Ice Cap sees a post that doesn't even mention communism and then goes off on how ignorant that poster is for thinking socialism and communism aren't tied at the hip. What the ?

Oh... the logo. It's really stupid. Plain, boring, and doesn't offer a nice compliment to the GOP's mascot. WTF bros? And it would be nice if we could have a 3-5 party system instead of this near-monopoly.

Capitalism may be far from perfect but it's better than everything else. Tell us a little about the tax burden in those "superior" Scandinavian countries. I'd prefer to decide how to spend my money as opposed to handing it over to the government.

In fact, if I had to name one thing the Feds could do to jumpstart the economy and restore peoples' faith in them, it would be to appoint a bipartisan council (or just empower the GAO, I trust them) to take a chainsaw to the federal budget. Eliminate the waste and pork and cow flatulence studies and excess entitlements, balance the budget, and return the excess as tax cuts. The economy would take off like a rocket.

Would you agree that Thomas Jefferson knew a little something about what this country was designed to be? He said, "To take from one, because it is thought that his own industry and that of his fathers has acquired too much, in order to spare to others, who, or whose fathers have not exercised equal industry and skill, is to violate arbitrarily the first principle of association, ‘the guarantee to every one of a free exercise of his industry, & the fruits acquired by it.'"

In other words, my money is mine and yours is yours, and if one of us doesn't earn as much as the other, as long as there's a level playing field with equal opportunities for everyone, then it's not the government's concern. Obviously some assistance programs are necessary, but wherever possible they should be a temporary 'get back on your feet' deal and not a way of life.

BTW, though a registered Republican, I vote my conscience (have voted for Dems once or twice) and cannot support either the Democratic or Republican candidates for Georgia governor, so I'm voting for the Libertarian candidate, John Monds, this time. If the two big parties alienate enough people, and they have to be getting close, maybe the Libertarians will get their shot. Could they do any worse?

[DEAD!]

Politics aside, I wasn't even aware that the Democrats didn't have an official logo.... and that is the best they can come up with?... It would have been more funny had the Republicans had a similar concept with and 'R' instead of a 'D' and have it register trade-marked...

[IceCap]

I'm pretty sure Scandinavian countries operate on a socialist system and have a higher standard of living than the US (who's economy is right now BTW). Capitalism is far from perfect and extremism is always .

Do they? Do you have any idea what Socialism actually is? Scandinavian nations still operate in a free market system, they just have a heavy (one could say healthy) government regulation, but the systems themselves still embrace free market economics. The Scandinavian systems are best described as democratic socialist, or social democracy; use of the capitalist system with socialist policies used to regulate, but not replace, it. Read some Marx, then read up on the Scandinavian economic systems. Yeah, not the same thing.

While Socialism is tied with communism that doesn't mean it's always inevitable.

No, that's correct. One could hold Socialist positions and still believe in the free market. As I've established that's a belief system known as social democracy or democratic socialism. So no, believing in some socialist positions does not make one a Communist, or even infer that social democracy will lead to Communism.

Socialism as an ideology, however, was developed first as a "gateway" to Communism, Marx himself makes that very clear. So it's not ignorance that would lead one to associate Socialism with Communism.

Also, I love how Ice Cap sees a post that doesn't even mention communism and then goes off on how ignorant that poster is for thinking socialism and communism aren't tied at the hip. What the :

?

A little reading comprehension would help sparky.

illwauk complained about ignorant conservatives not knowing what Socialism really was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he meant "only ignorant people associate Socialism with Communism." Which is, in and of itself, a very ignorant statement. Socialism and Communism are both derived from the same ideology, and Marx himself said Socialism would prepare the way for Communism. Now as we've established you can hold Socialist ideals, and even have a system with a fair amount of Socialist influence and that does not make you a Communist (social democracy). With that said people who make the Socialism to Communism connection are not doing so out of ignorance.

Now yes, if you lived in the USSA the Workers' and Farmers Council of State would probably have kept LeBron James playing for the Cleveland Spartacus Basketball Collective, but really. Don't come to me and call me out when you yourself only have a willingness to overuse the emoticon and a half-baked idea of the ideologies you're discussing.

[-Akronite-]

I'm pretty sure Scandinavian countries operate on a socialist system and have a higher standard of living than the US (who's economy is right now BTW). Capitalism is far from perfect and extremism is always .

Do they? Do you have any idea what Socialism actually is? Scandinavian nations still operate in a free market system, they just have a heavy (one could say healthy) government regulation, but the systems themselves still embrace free market economics. The Scandinavian systems are best described as democratic socialist, or social democracy; use of the capitalist system with socialist policies used to regulate, but not replace, it. Read some Marx, then read up on the Scandinavian economic systems. Yeah, not the same thing.

My point was that there are countries that have socialist qualities but still do very well for themselves. Lists come out all the time where these European countries operating with socialist regulation are listed way above the US on best places to live and living standards. They've found a balance between the free market system and government regulation. The US isn't doing well at either right now.

While Socialism is tied with communism that doesn't mean it's always inevitable.

No, that's correct. One could hold Socialist positions and still believe in the free market. As I've established that's a belief system known as social democracy or democratic socialism. So no, believing in some socialist positions does not make one a Communist, or even infer that social democracy will lead to Communism.

Socialism as an ideology, however, was developed first as a "gateway" to Communism, Marx himself makes that very clear. So it's not ignorance that would lead one to associate Socialism with Communism.

Nobody said it was.

Also, I love how Ice Cap sees a post that doesn't even mention communism and then goes off on how ignorant that poster is for thinking socialism and communism aren't tied at the hip. What the :

?

A little reading comprehension would help sparky.

illwauk complained about ignorant conservatives not knowing what Socialism really was. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that he meant "only ignorant people associate Socialism with Communism." Which is, in and of itself, a very ignorant statement. Socialism and Communism are both derived from the same ideology, and Marx himself said Socialism would prepare the way for Communism. Now as we've established you can hold Socialist ideals, and even have a system with a fair amount of Socialist influence and that does not make you a Communist (social democracy). With that said people who make the Socialism to Communism connection are not doing so out of ignorance.

Sparky? How mature. Oh, and just because you assumed what he meant doesn't mean he wanted you to go off on all your glorious wisdom about all you know about the links of socialism and communism. He made a small comment and you went on a ridiculous rant based on something he didn't even directly say. Just get over yourself.

Now yes, if you lived in the USSA the Workers' and Farmers Council of State would probably have kept LeBron James playing for the Cleveland Spartacus Basketball Collective, but really. Don't come to me and call me out when you yourself only have a willingness to overuse the emoticon and a half-baked idea of the ideologies you're discussing.

I called you out for one thing and you know what it was. I didn't call out how knowledgeable you are and none of my post was directed at you except for that one subject area. So why are writing a wall of text over basically nothing? This last paragraph has no relevance. The censored emoticon was because I cursed when I wrote it, I didn't use them myself. You're just attacking me like a fool.

I'm done with this. I really didn't care and was just stating some opinions, based on what I know. I wasn't trying to glorify myself or my intelligence or my positions or call anyone out. I'm not gonna win the "who can write the most" contest against you, so congratulations.

[IceCap]

My point was that there are countries that have socialist qualities but still do very well for themselves. Lists come out all the time where these European countries operating with socialist regulation are listed way above the US on best places to live and living standards. They've found a balance between the free market system and government regulation. The US isn't doing well at either right now.

Socialist qualities do not make a country socialist. Hell, the US has socialist qualities. Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office, regulation of the private sector. Having socialist qualities in an economic system does not make said system socialist.

Socialism as an ideology, however, was developed first as a "gateway" to Communism, Marx himself makes that very clear. So it's not ignorance that would lead one to associate Socialism with Communism.

Nobody said it was.

illwauk did. If you honestly don't think he meant "people who associate socialism with communism" then you fail at reading comprehension.

Sparky? How mature. Oh, and just because you assumed what he meant doesn't mean he wanted you to go off on all your glorious wisdom about all you know about the links of socialism and communism. He made a small comment and you went on a ridiculous rant based on something he didn't even directly say. Just get over yourself.

I didn't assume what he meant. I inferred what he meant. There's a fundamental difference. Judging from what he said, the posts that he was referring to, and the precedent set by similar discussions had thousands of times on the topic I was able to infer that he meant "people who say socialism has a connection to communism are ignorant." Again, reading comprehension goes a long way.

And it wasn't a small comment. If you're going to call people ignorant, if you're going to condemn an entire social-political theory as ignorant, then you damn well better have something to back that up. illwauk did not.

I called you out for one thing and you know what it was. I didn't call out how knowledgeable you are and none of my post was directed at you except for that one subject area. So why are writing a wall of text over basically nothing? This last paragraph has no relevance. The censored emoticon was because I cursed when I wrote it, I didn't use them myself. You're just attacking me like a fool.

"Wall of text" gets thrown around so much it's lost all meaning. I'm beginning to think that anything over a few lines is just to much for the average message board user to handle in one sitting. I responded to you because you accused me of something I did not do. You attempted to belittle me to promote your own half-baked political positions.

As for cursing, an occasional curse word here or there is fine. Overuse of it tends to indicate a lack of clarity of mind.

[Lights Out]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

[BlueSky]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

I'll toss in the FAA's "modernization" of the air traffic control system. This is from a 2003 article:

===

A two-decade effort by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to modernize air traffic control equipment has been plagued by cost overruns, schedule delays and performance problems, an official from the General Accounting Office told Congress this month. Shortfalls in air traffic control technology contributed to horrendous and expensive delays a few years ago. Struggling airlines want the new technology because it can help lower their operating costs.

===

[burgundy]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

[tBBP]

Hey, you there! You drive? You got a car? Did you park it nose-in? Well hey, next time you get in, close the door, stick that key in the ignition, crank that bad boy on up, then shift into "R", back it on up, then shift it into "D", and take on off moving forward.

Seriously...I point that out because I actually saw this pop up on someone's Facebook feed. And it actually makes a little bit of sense. That new logo very easily resembles a gear on your transmission--the "D", for drive, or go forward. TO go backward, what do you do? Put it in "R", for "reverse". I :censored: you not--I actually saw this line of reasoning used by the Prez. Went something along the lines of "Republicans have been moving this country backwards for years. Time for the American people to drive this nation forward. Time to put it in 'D'". (To be fair, I'm not at all cool with the recent spike in political pandering by our CiC lately, but looking at that new logo, and then seeing that stream pop up in my FB news feed...there may be a connection there. Just saying.)

[BlueSky]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

It's not "corporatized," it's an independent agency of the government. Furthermore, it has a monopoly on many of its services. Not a good example for your argument. The missing link is competition because that's the only incentive for any entity to improve itself.

[Lights Out]

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

No, the Post Office was not completely spun off. And yes, it has been run into the ground, because Congress won't let them eliminate Saturday mail or close unnecessary locations. If they were completely independent, the Post Office would have been able to cut costs decades ago and be in a much better financial position now.

Just because you appear to be thoroughly against capitalism doesn't mean all CEO's are disgusting, heartless people that are only concerned with making a quick buck. I'm sure the government could find an upstanding person to run Social Security as an independent NPO if they actually tried.

And by "corporatizing" the schools, I mean spinning the public school system off into charter schools, which would improve the quality of education and get the tendrils of big government (union disputes, "two years and you're set for life" tenure, the government's version of history) out of the school system entirely. It would also allow for competition among schools, which would lead to far quicker and more dramatic improvements in athletics, music, art, etc. It would be a long process but completely worth it in the long run.

"Time for the American people to drive this nation forward. Time to put it in 'D'."

Well, it's certainly appropriate: the Obama administration is driving this nation forward... all the way over a cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

[FiddySicks]

This article shows a comparison between the two logos, which shows the similarities more clearly.

Well it's good to see that the organizations that help get candidates elected to run our government are concerned with our biggest problems, like who has the coolest letter inside of a circle logo. Go USA!

[NJTank]

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

No, the Post Office was not completely spun off. And yes, it has been run into the ground, because Congress won't let them eliminate Saturday mail or close unnecessary locations. If they were completely independent, the Post Office would have been able to cut costs decades ago and be in a much better financial position now.

Just because you appear to be thoroughly against capitalism doesn't mean all CEO's are disgusting, heartless people that are only concerned with making a quick buck. I'm sure the government could find an upstanding person to run Social Security as an independent NPO if they actually tried.

And by "corporatizing" the schools, I mean spinning the public school system off into charter schools, which would improve the quality of education and get the tendrils of big government (union disputes, "two years and you're set for life" tenure, the government's version of history) out of the school system entirely. It would also allow for competition among schools, which would lead to far quicker and more dramatic improvements in athletics, music, art, etc. It would be a long process but completely worth it in the long run.

"Time for the American people to drive this nation forward. Time to put it in 'D'."

Well, it's certainly appropriate: the Obama administration is driving this nation forward... all the way over a cliff, Thelma and Louise style.

[rams80]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

It's not "corporatized," it's an independent agency of the government. Furthermore, it has a monopoly on many of its services. Not a good example for your argument. The missing link is competition because that's the only incentive for any entity to improve itself.

So if monopolies are bad because of a lack of competition...why should we privatize resources when the general trend in corporate American is mergers and conglomerations that limit competition again?

/Oh wait that's efficient

//Unless you AREN'T a stockholder.

[BlueSky]

Government run and maintained roads, schools, old age, social security, the post office

Coincidentally, all are a complete mess and, IMO, would operate better if they were corporatized. Especially Social Security, since corrupt politicians in Congress raided its funds to pay for other programs for years. Yet another example of how a gigantic socialist government actually does less to serve the people.

The Post Office was corporatized back in the 70's. While good at first, it has been thoroughly run into the ground since. As for the social security situation, do you really think replacing corrupt politicians with corrupt CEO's would make a difference? And corporate schools? Hell no.

It's not "corporatized," it's an independent agency of the government. Furthermore, it has a monopoly on many of its services. Not a good example for your argument. The missing link is competition because that's the only incentive for any entity to improve itself.

So if monopolies are bad because of a lack of competition...why should we privatize resources when the general trend in corporate American is mergers and conglomerations that limit competition again?

/Oh wait that's efficient

//Unless you AREN'T a stockholder.

There's a review process to ensure competition, though I'm realistic enough not to place total faith in it. So I agree that current antitrust and pro-competition regulations should be enforced and if necessary, more stringent regulations put in place. That's just common sense.

Besides, sometimes mergers are a good thing. I predict Southwest/Airtran will be such an instance. And it will be fun to watch Delta scramble here in Atlanta. A former boss, ironically at Delta, used to say we wanted to take competitive actions bold enough to "make 'em run down the hall," as in someone running to tell their boss what had happened. I suspect there was some running in the halls at Delta when news of that merger came down.

[Dexter Morgan]

You know why the Republican symbol is R? Because it's the noise a pirate makes when he robs you and feeds you to a shark. -Bill Maher

[The_Admiral]

They haven't been tried in decades. Meanwhile, communism and socialism continues to fail overseas, but the Democratic party and a few rogue Republicans would still like to introduce it here.

Marxists are philosophy's answer to Cubs fans. This is the year it's gonna happen!