Is Ken Paxton a Democratic Socialist?

[QP!]

"you guys"

you debate like a clown. not "you guys" - you specifically

attack me for what I say - not what "you guys say"

i am attacking you directly with 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!'..."

If you have a better singular definition we can use in a non partisan way to define the use of the tax code or dollars to incentivize everything from Bidens tax rebates on appliances, to Mamdani;s grocery stores, to Paxtons GLP1's, Yoga, Meditation, etc.. then please provide it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

My argument is not that there is one definition. My argument is simply 'whatever definition you use for leftist Populism to call it socialism, then lets use that same one to assess right leaning Populism. Be CONSISTENT'.

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. The two shouldn't be conflated.

If you take zymurgy stance you can have the most lefty Populist granola munching POTUS who comes to power and says 'my life choices and my lifestyle is the perfect one for everyone and the gov't needs to use the tax code and deductions to incentive you all to make all the same choices i do and as such here is now a giant list of tax offsets for the things i do that you can now take advantage of'.

That's something of a Leftist political stance. Using the tax code to incentivize society to do something is another Left leaning political maneuver. That doesn't make it "Socialism."

As those on the right would scream SOCIALISM, zymurgy would defend against that and say it is not.

Okay.

 

[zymurgy]

My argument is not that there is one definition. My argument is simply 'whatever definition you use for leftist Populism to call it socialism, then lets use that same one to assess right leaning Populism. Be CONSISTENT'.

If you take zymurgy stance you can have the most lefty Populist granola munching POTUS who comes to power and says 'my life choices and my lifestyle is the perfect one for everyone and the gov't needs to use the tax code and deductions to incentive you all to make all the same choices i do and as such here is now a giant list of tax offsets for the things i do that you can now take advantage of'.

As those on the right would scream SOCIALISM, zymurgy would defend against that and say it is not.

and again FINE, if we want to all retreat to TRUE definitions for socialism but then it must be applied EQUALLY to the leftist Populism of which almost none would conform with a strict socialist definition. They only fit under the expansive definition which then traps Paxton too.

You keep arguing against a position I have never taken.

I am probably the most Austrian-economics guy on this forum. I have never said I support Paxton’s Keynesian/populist tax policy. I have repeatedly said I don’t.

My argument is about classification.

If your standard is the strict economic definition of socialism, then most of the left-populist programs people casually call “socialism” are not socialism either.

Fine. Use that definition consistently.

If your standard is the loose partisan definition — “government using taxes, subsidies, deductions, or incentives to steer private behavior” — then yes, Paxton gets caught in that net too.

Fine. Use that definition consistently.

What you do not get to do is pretend I am defending Paxton’s policies simply because I am distinguishing Keynesian intervention from socialism.

Mises > Keynes > Marx is not an endorsement of Keynes.

Your reading comprehension on that point is about as strong as your earlier understanding of how a tax deduction works.

You debate like a clown.

I

 

[zymurgy]

i am attacking you directly with 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!'..."

you are putting words in my mouth. Link to me saying what you quoted here please

 

[Nordberg]

Socialism is an economic system, not a political one. The two shouldn't be conflated.


That's something of a Leftist political stance. Using the tax code to incentivize society to do something is another Left leaning political maneuver. That doesn't make it "Socialism."


Okay.

Socialism is a philosophy. It does not exist as a government. These socialist countries that Trumpys cry about are capitalist and have been for a century. We are discussing universal healthcare because it is better for the people and cheaper for the country. You label it as Socialism and divert the discussion. We have the worst healthcare system of industrial nations. We should change it.

 

[cawacko]

Socialism is a philosophy. It does not exist as a government. These socialist countries that Trumpys cry about are capitalist and have been for a century. We are discussing universal healthcare because it is better for the people and cheaper for the country. You label it as Socialism and divert the discussion. We have the worst healthcare system of industrial nations. We should change it.

I've noticed each time democratic socialism gets discussed you go to universal healthcare, as if that's the only tenet of democratic socialism.

 

[QP!]

...That's something of a Leftist political stance. Using the tax code to incentivize society to do something is another Left leaning political maneuver. That doesn't make it "Socialism."
...

Again to be clear I'm not arguing over the word choice or definition because we will never agree here.

But I will call out bullshit when the application of the word is used to condemn the left as Socialist for a certain set of policy choices (Populist) and then the same people do back flips to defend a right politician pushing his own Populist agenda thru the tax code.

If a future President AOC type said 'these are the lifestyle choices I think are good for everyone and as such I will be using the tax code to try and incentivize everyone to do them' and people here try to deny the screams of socialism from the right would not be over whelming, they are just lying.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Socialism is a philosophy. It does not exist as a government.

Not true. It is an economic system. It is actually, probably, the most common form of economic system there is. The government to one degree or another runs the economy. It may selectively run certain parts of it. It may own some or all of the means of production. Or, it may just control what gets produced. It could just run the service sectors of the economy like healthcare or a paid in retirement system.

What Socialism is not is the government doing things for nation as a whole that individuals and private businesses cannot / will not do or cannot do with any degree of efficiency.

These socialist countries that Trumpys cry about are capitalist and have been for a century.

Like? Most "Socialist" countries have become mixed economies with the government socializing much of the service industry while leaving manufacturing and related industries as private corporations.

We are discussing universal healthcare because it is better for the people and cheaper for the country.

Better is highly debatable. Cheaper, likewise.

You label it as Socialism and divert the discussion. We have the worst healthcare system of industrial nations. We should change it.

Actually, for outcomes the US has one of the best systems in the world. Sure, it is extremely expensive, but it gets good results. All the usual studies trotted out arguing against this are heavily biased towards favoring socialized medicine run by the government. Thus, the results of their analysis finds that government run socialized healthcare is somehow "the best."

We should get government OUT of the healthcare / health insurance business to the maximum extent possible, not give them power over it.

 

[QP!]

you are putting words in my mouth. Link to me saying what you quoted here please

You seem to forget who started this thread and how it was not a DM to you.

I was addressing the way the broad right uses Socialism as a catch all slur for the left policies and actions.

It does not matter what definition anyone uses and I've said that repeatedly.

What matters is THE CATCH ALL BOX the right uses. One that captured Bidens appliance, tax credits, Mamdani's grocery stores, and Paxtons GLP 1s, Yoga and Meditation, etc tax credits '

When I label them all as falling under Socialism using the RIGHT'S catch all box CORRECTLY, anyone who tries to split ONLY Paxtons out as not Socialism by then pivoting to a strict definition ONLY for his actions is playing partisan games.

 

[zymurgy]

You seem to forget who started this thread and how it was not a DM to you.

I don’t need a DM. This is an open forum.


At some point you may want to debate the people actually in the thread instead of the imaginary Republican caucus living in your head.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again to be clear I'm not arguing over the word choice or definition because we will never agree here.

But I will call out bullshit when the application of the word is used to condemn the left as Socialist for a certain set of policy choices (Populist) and then the same people do back flips to defend a right politician pushing his own Populist agenda thru the tax code.

If a future President AOC type said 'these are the lifestyle choices I think are good for everyone and as such I will be using the tax code to try and incentivize everyone to do them' and people here try to deny the screams of socialism from the right would not be over whelming, they are just lying.

I'll agree to the extent that one has to be consistent with their words. Otherwise, you end up sounding like Humpty Dumpty.

You are basically posing the same question as Alice did.

 

[QP!]

I've noticed each time democratic socialism gets discussed you go to universal healthcare, as if that's the only tenet of democratic socialism.

Universal Healthcare is arguably the best example to use as it's well known.

The big problem is defining the basket of what falls under it.

There can be no denying that the Insurance Model, of 'the bigger the pool... the better the cost and more access to service ' members get, which is a model evolved and proven in the free markets.

So the arguments for a single payer government model, without a profit motive are pretty easy to debate.

The counter argument speaks to growing inefficiency and waste concerns that can and do potentially arise in any monopoly.

Is the current profit driven fragmented system (not insulated from inefficiency and waste) on balance better than a single payer government one based on the proven principle that bigger pools are better???

That depends on the subjective assumptions applied to either over the inefficiency and waste.

(I'm deliberately avoiding Cuba like systems that deliver the services as well via govt control as I believe that can never be managed better)

 

[cawacko]

Universal Healthcare is arguably the best example to use as it's well known.

The big problem is defining the basket of what falls under it.

There can be no denying that the Insurance Model, of 'the bigger the pool... the better the cost and more access to service ' members get, which is a model evolved and proven in the free markets.

So the arguments for a single payer government model, without a profit motive are pretty easy to debate.

The counter argument speaks to growing inefficiency and waste concerns that can and do potentially arise in any monopoly.

Is the current profit driven fragmented system (not insulated from inefficiency and waste) on balance better than a single payer government one based on the proven principle that bigger pools are better???

That depends on the subjective assumptions applied to either over the inefficiency and waste.

(I'm deliberately avoiding Cuba like systems that deliver the services as well via govt control as I believe that can never be managed better)

Are Canada and a bunch of European countries (democratic) socialist countries then because they have single payer healthcare?

 

[QP!]

I don’t need a DM. This is an open forum.


At some point you may want to debate the people actually in the thread instead of the imaginary Republican caucus living in your head.

The point you missed is that you seem to think you framed this discussion and it's your definition at debate here.

It is not.

It is mine. And I applied it correctly per its catch all use.

You coming in to MY THREAD, and replying to MY POST, telling me I am wrong as you argue why it does not apply to Paxton while you are ignoring my catch all PROPER USE and instead trying to force a pivot to a more technically accurate one is a fail on your part.

Again the point is not to get to agreement on definitions but rather to just apply whatever catch all is being used consistently to judge BOTH left and right populism being pushed out by politicians.

If it is going to be pushed here that Biden tax credits to Mamdani grocery stores and every other populist thing on the left is socialism but then said to be bullshit that Paxton Glp 1 and Yoga are not that is bullshit.

Trying to defend that bullshit by using a strict definition on Paxton only is partisan bullshit.

 

[QP!]

Are Canada and a bunch of European countries (democratic) socialist countries then because they have single payer healthcare?

Give one definition of "(democratic) socialist" we can all agree on as answering without that is pointless as everyone would do what zymurgy is trying to do which is impose their own definition and then tell the other they are wrong when they are not using that one.

 

[cawacko]

Give one definition of "(democratic) socialist" we can all agree on as answering without that is pointless as everyone would do what zymurgy is trying to do which is impose their own definition and then tell the other they are wrong when they are not using that one.

From the DSA website:

Capitalism is a system designed by the owning class to exploit the rest of us for their own profit. We must replace it with democratic socialism, a system where ordinary people have a real voice in our workplaces, neighborhoods, and society.

We believe there are many avenues that feed into the democratic road to socialism. Our vision pushes further than historic social democracy and leaves behind authoritarian visions of socialism in the dustbin of history.

We want a democracy that creates space for us all to flourish not just survive and answers the fundamental questions of our lives with the input of all. We want to collectively own the key economic drivers that dominate our lives, such as energy production and transportation. We want the multiracial working class united in solidarity instead of divided by fear. We want to win “radical” reforms like single-payer Medicare for All, defunding the police/refunding communities, the Green New Deal, and more as a transition to a freer, more just life.

We want a democracy powered by everyday people. The capitalist class tells us we are powerless, but together we can take back control.

What is Democratic Socialism? - Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)

Democratic socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few.

www.dsausa.org

So universal healthcare is clearly a part of their platform/definition but far from the only issue. Yet each time I've seen Nordberg discuss democratic socialism he's referred to it only in context of universal healthcare. Hence my question to him.

 

[QP!]

Are Canada and a bunch of European countries (democratic) socialist countries then because they have single payer healthcare?

If you are using the DSA one then no, what Bernie and Canada and Europeans espouse is not that and not in line with my view of Democratic socialism.

 

[zymurgy]

The point you missed is that you seem to think you framed this discussion and it's your definition at debate here.

It is not.

this is why you are a clown. I frame the portion I choose to debate. You do not get to invent my position

 

[QP!]

this is why you are a clown. I frame the portion I choose to debate. You do not get to invent my position

No.

Stop spewing bullshit.

You replied to my framing in the OP and said i was wrong.

You chose to try and change it to your framing and you do not get to invent my position based on your framing.

 

[zymurgy]

No.

Stop spewing bullshit.

You replied to my framing in the OP and said i was wrong.

You chose to try and change it to your framing and you do not get to invent my position based on your framing.

The one spewing bullshit here is you.

You literally tried to argue that a medicine becomes “free” because someone is allowed to deduct the expense from taxable income.

That is not how a tax deduction works.

And we do not even know yet whether Paxton’s proposed deduction would be above-the-line, itemized, or structured some other way. If it were itemized, plenty of taxpayers taking the standard deduction might receive no benefit from it at all.

Yet here you are confidently declaring that a $5,000 deduction means government just bought somebody a $5,000 drug.

Before lecturing everyone about socialism, populism, and economic systems, you might want to acquire a basic understanding of the tax mechanism your entire argument depends upon.

Watching someone this certain while being this wrong is genuinely embarrassing.