Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?

QP! said:
There is no chance... NONE... that magats like zymurgy would not be screaming "socialism" if a Democratic Socialist candidate adopted this methodology solely of abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, and did so sector by sector and program by program.

zymurgy pretending he would fully support a democratic socialist agenda that addressed all their key Populist programs via this method of State interventionism, is just full of shit.
Click to expand...
When Paxton starts arguing that private grocery stores are failing capitalism and the government should open publicly owned competitors, or starts debating how many brands of deodorant society really “needs,” wake me up.


Until then, calling tax deductions, family credits, or other conventional interventions “Democratic Socialism” is just abusing the term until it means any policy that isn’t Austrian economics.


And once you define socialism that broadly, the word stops meaning anything.
 
zymurgy said:
This is where your “socialism” label falls apart. A lot of this is ordinary Keynesian intervention inside a fiat-money economy.

Government helps erode purchasing power through inflation, deficit spending, monetary expansion, and manipulated interest rates, then creates tax credits and deductions to soften the damage for families.

You can absolutely argue that this is bad economics. I often do. But it is not the same thing as socialism.

And pretending that a family tax deduction and student-debt cancellation have the same economic purpose because both leave someone with more disposable income is just lazy analysis. One is designed to encourage family formation and offset household costs. The other forgives a debt someone voluntarily incurred.

The only part I’ll agree with is that both are attempts to deal with the damage created by a debt-based fiat economy.

If you want to criticize Keynesian economics, criticize Keynesian economics. Stop relabeling every government intervention you dislike as “Democratic Socialism.”
Click to expand...
And this is where you argument falls apart...

"...You can absolutely argue that this is bad economics. I often do. But it is not the same thing as socialism...."

You are trying to dispute what i say prior by NOW trying to stick to an ABSOLUTE definition of socialism and saying 'Paxtons positions do not adhere to a strict definition'.

Well guess what snowflake, neither does most of the left Populism fit in to an absolute or narrow definition of Socialism.

When the right screams screams socialism at Populist stuff from the left what they are ACTUALLY saying is (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND)....



'You, the left are abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, That equals SOCIALISM!'

While you and i can agree that it DOES NOT technically and accurately equal socialism, what i am pointing out is that if we accept this more blanket definition as socialism when a Populist leftist politician trots out a program then what Ken Paxton is pushing now CANNOT and DOES NOT escape this more broader definition above.
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
And this is where you argument falls apart...

"...You can absolutely argue that this is bad economics. I often do. But it is not the same thing as socialism...."

You are trying to dispute what i say prior by NOW trying to stick to an ABSOLUTE definition of socialism and saying 'Paxtons positions do not adhere to a strict definition'.

Well guess what snowflake, neither does most of the left Populism fit in to an absolute or narrow definition of Socialism.

When the right screams screams socialism at Populist stuff from the left what they are ACTUALLY saying is (AND THIS IS IMPORTANT FOR YOU TO UNDERSTAND)....



'You, the left are abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, That equals SOCIALISM!'

While you and i can agree that it DOES NOT technically and accurately equal socialism, what i am pointing out is that if we accept this more blanket definition as socialism when a Populist politician trots out a program then what Ken Paxton CANNOT and DOES NOT escape this more broader definition above.
Click to expand...
you quote and debate like a fucking clown

Your argument has now become:

“Other people misuse the word socialism, therefore I get to misuse it too.”
 
zymurgy said:
When Paxton starts arguing that private grocery stores are failing capitalism and the government should open publicly owned competitors, or starts debating how many brands of deodorant society really “needs,” wake me up.


Until then, calling tax deductions, family credits, or other conventional interventions “Democratic Socialism” is just abusing the term until it means any policy that isn’t Austrian economics.


And once you define socialism that broadly, the word stops meaning anything.
Click to expand...
Yeah, to your point, I read his argument as basically saying anything other than pure laissez faire free market is democratic socialism.
 
QP! said:
Well good for you for not lying to yourself and sending yourself into the spin zone to rationalize it like @zymurgy is desperate to do.

Paxton's plan would basically make GLP-1's and a bunch of other stuff Alex Jones sells free for everyone. Everyone can buy them and then get a 100% tax offset to cover the cost.

zymurgy screams, giving them tax breaks to pay for it is not the same as handing them a check to pay for it thus it is not socialism even though it is the same mechanism by another means. Both use the tax code to ensure the citizen out of pocket cost end up covered by the tax code.
Click to expand...
I don't like you, but that looks like he's paid off by Big Pharma. :dunno:
And to use taxpayer funds for it? Fuck that. :nono:
He's not in my state, though.
If I was in Texas, he's still better than the groomer fake preacher, and that's where I am on that.
 
Last edited:
zymurgy said:
When Paxton starts arguing that private grocery stores are failing capitalism and the government should open publicly owned competitors, or starts debating how many brands of deodorant society really “needs,” wake me up.


Until then, calling tax deductions, family credits, or other conventional interventions “Democratic Socialism” is just abusing the term until it means any policy that isn’t Austrian economics.


And once you define socialism that broadly, the word stops meaning anything.
Click to expand...
Right.

So only the programs that Dems advocate for are socialism worth waking up for. Ken Paxton is advocating for other Populist programs and not the exact same ones so 'who cares', 'not worth waking up for'.

And if we reversed it (which we easily could as many on the left advocate for the EXACT same Populist things Paxton is) you would then label only the populist left stuff as socialist and concerning while giving a pass to the stuff coming out of the right as not worth waking up for.

You are a hypocritical joke.
 
Matt Dillon said:
I don't like you, but that looks like he's paid off by Big Pharma. :dunno:
And to use taxpayer funds for it? Fuck that. :nono:
He's not in my state though.
Click to expand...
tax payer funds

lol

you are a retard too.

the "tax payer funds" are interest on the debt. you spoiled children aren't paying for this shit.

I can think Paxton’s interventionism is bad policy without pretending it is Democratic Socialism.


My argument is simply that Keynesian/populist intervention is still preferable to Marxist/socialist economics. So when I say “wake me up when Paxton starts opening government grocery stores,” I am not giving him a pass. I am saying there are degrees of bad economic policy, and Democratic Socialism is further down that road.


If You keep hearing “Paxton isn’t a socialist” as “Paxton is right.” Those are not the same statement.


Mises > Keynes > Marx.

Paxton may be too Keynesian for me but Bernie/socialism are still worse.
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
Right.

So only the programs that Dems advocate for are socialism worth waking up for. Ken Paxton is advocating for other Populist programs and not the exact same ones so 'who cares', 'not worth waking up for'.

And if we reversed it (which we easily could as many on the left advocate for the EXACT same Populist things Paxton is) you would then label only the populist left stuff as socialist and concerning while giving a pass to the stuff coming out of the right as not worth waking up for.

You are a hypocritical joke.
Click to expand...
"Other people misuse the word socialism, therefore I get to misuse it too"

the joke here is you
 
cawacko said:
Yeah, to your point, I read his argument as basically saying anything other than pure laissez faire free market is democratic socialism.
Click to expand...
But that is on you and your lack of comprehension and not me.

What i am saying is easy for a competent person to understand that is SOCIALISM as a weaponized term is not being used accurately or to the true definition by the right when lobbed at most Populist left programs. What they are saying is this...

'You, the left are abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, That equals SOCIALISM!'

And if you accept that EXPANDED definition of socialism such that it DOES capture most Populist programs on the left, then there is no way to deny it also captures Paxtons programs on the right.

You guys arguing Paxton can just decide the gov't can start CHERRY PICKING things like FREE GLP-1s for everyone is not socialism simply because Paxton is structuring it as a tax credit such that once you pay for it you can deduct 100% of the cost just shows how absurd you guys are.

You would NOT accept a leftist politician cherry picking EACH AND EVERY program they wanted and giving it a 100% tax deduction to offset all cost and not be screaming socialism.

You just would not and yet need to lie to yourself to say 'oh we would be ok with all of it if Dem Socialist used the tax code in that manner'.
 
QP! said:
But that is on you and your lack of comprehension and not me.

What i am saying is easy for a competent person to understand that is SOCIALISM as a weaponized term is not being used accurately or to the true definition by the right when lobbed at most Populist left programs. What they are saying is this...

'You, the left are abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, That equals SOCIALISM!'

And if you accept that EXPANDED definition of socialism such that it DOES capture most Populist programs on the left, then there is no way to deny it also captures Paxtons programs on the right.

You guys arguing Paxton can just decide the gov't can start CHERRY PICKING things like FREE GLP-1s for everyone is not socialism simply because Paxton is structuring it as a tax credit such that once you pay for it you can deduct 100% of the cost just shows how absurd you guys are.

You would NOT accept a leftist politician cherry picking EACH AND EVERY program they wanted and giving it a 100% tax deduction to offset all cost and not be screaming socialism.

You just would not and yet need to lie to yourself to say 'oh we would be ok with all of it if Dem Socialist used the tax code in that manner'.
Click to expand...
I would not. Fuck no!
 
  • Like
Reactions: QP!
QP! said:
But that is on you and your lack of comprehension and not me.

What i am saying is easy for a competent person to understand that is SOCIALISM as a weaponized term is not being used accurately or to the true definition by the right when lobbed at most Populist left programs. What they are saying is this...

'You, the left are abandoning traditional free-market conservate type consideration — which leaves those choices to the market—in favor of state-guided economic engineering, That equals SOCIALISM!'

And if you accept that EXPANDED definition of socialism such that it DOES capture most Populist programs on the left, then there is no way to deny it also captures Paxtons programs on the right.

You guys arguing Paxton can just decide the gov't can start CHERRY PICKING things like FREE GLP-1s for everyone is not socialism simply because Paxton is structuring it as a tax credit such that once you pay for it you can deduct 100% of the cost just shows how absurd you guys are.

You would NOT accept a leftist politician cherry picking EACH AND EVERY program they wanted and giving it a 100% tax deduction to offset all cost and not be screaming socialism.

You just would not and yet need to lie to yourself to say 'oh we would be ok with all of it if Dem Socialist used the tax code in that manner'.
Click to expand...
government ran grocery stores

debating if we should limit choices in deodorant

you are ignoring the direction you shit stains want to go
 
zymurgy said:
"Other people misuse the word socialism, therefore I get to misuse it too"

the joke here is you
Click to expand...
No.

YOU misuse the word socialism.

You want to BOTH use the expanded "misused" form of socialism to condemn leftist Populism programs.... while retreating to a absolute definition to exclude and deny right Populism programs.

That type of partisan bullshit needs to be called out.

I do not care which of the two you stick to. If you want to use the proper definition then do and drop the bullshit cries of socialism screamed at the populist left. If you want to use the expanded definition, then do, but they do NOT CRY when it is shown to apply at right Populism.
 
Matt Dillon said:
Oh, okay, Delbert. :rolleyes2:
Click to expand...

QP! said:
No.

YOU misuse the word socialism.

You want to BOTH use the expanded "misused" form of socialism to condemn leftist Populism programs.... while retreating to a absolute definition to exclude and deny right Populism programs.

That type of partisan bullshit needs to be called out.

I do not care which of the two you stick to. If you want to use the proper definition then do and drop the bullshit cries of socialism screamed at the populist left. If you want to use the expanded definition, then do, but they do NOT CRY when it is shown to apply at right Populism.
Click to expand...
I have gone to great lengths explaining the difference between socialism and Keynesian intervention, and you keep pretending I have not.

I am not saying Paxton is correct. My view is pretty simple:

Mises > Keynes > Marx.

So yes, I can criticize Paxton for interventionist policy while still saying it is not the same thing as Democratic Socialism.

You keep insisting that because both involve government action, they belong in the same ideological bucket. They do not.

You can lead a horse to water...

And sometimes, apparently, it turns out not to be a horse at all.

It is a jackass.
 
QP! said:
No.

YOU misuse the word socialism.

You want to BOTH use the expanded "misused" form of socialism to condemn leftist Populism programs.... while retreating to a absolute definition to exclude and deny right Populism programs.

That type of partisan bullshit needs to be called out.

I do not care which of the two you stick to. If you want to use the proper definition then do and drop the bullshit cries of socialism screamed at the populist left. If you want to use the expanded definition, then do, but they do NOT CRY when it is shown to apply at right Populism.
Click to expand...
What Paxton is doing is more like Crony Capitalism or Fascism, not Socialism.
You filthy Commie puke! :awesome:
Texas really needs a better candidate, tbh.
 
Last edited:
QP! said:
Again,

You and will never agree here but at least you, unlike zymurgy and @cawacko are being consistent in saying NO TO BOTH, and not allowing games on how it is LABELLED to drive you to partisan approval or disapproval.
Click to expand...
LOL, where have I commented on anything other than how you defined democratic socialist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top