The Right maliciously and artfully confuses these two completely distinct issues, (is there a budget problem, and what we do about it), so they can implement a policy that serves their purposes first and leaves the rest of us gasping for breath.

That policy is, essentially, “I don’t care what happens to you, just don’t you dare interfere with my ability to accumulate and hoard wealth any damn way I please, regardless of the consequences.” And of course, any role the Right might have had in contributing to this lamentable state of affairs is conveniently ignored, as if they never controlled the means of production, the levers to political power, and the financial structure of the economy. I didn’t cause the budget crisis. I paid my bills, paid my taxes went to work every day, and played the game by their rules. Don’t blame me if the movers and shakers couldn’t get it right and refused to listen to my advice.

You damned right I’ve got you sussed. The Right doesn’t give a damn about saving the economy or the nation. They are just determined to be the ones that prosper from it.
The “religious belief” part comes from the faith they have that everyone else is so dense they can’t clearly see what they’re up to, and the faith their True Believer camp followers and sycophants have that if their heroes get their way the problem will vanish and they’ll get a free ride to entrepreneurial Paradise.

You better learn to tread water, Tom. They haven’t saved you a seat in the lifeboat.

The only answer your party is giving is more spending and higher taxes.

What is your bar for “doesn’t work?”

As has been said before, we’re running out of other people’s money. That was the point of the YouTube film in the first place.

Europe is dying of this. Why can’t we learn?

I’m heading to bed. Good workout, man!

You have an agenda based on your class interests and you expect everybody to just roll over and let you have your way. No. Your proposals all come out saying the same thing. You are getting too much and I don’t want to pay any more.

Make another proposal and I will consider it.

The only counterexamples of this occur in those societies which have modulated and regulated capitalism through democratic means. Governtment may not create wealth, but capital hoards it and doesn’t share.

THe society does not exist to proivide business with markets and labor. Business exists to provide society with wealth and employment.

We’re talking about things like whether $400 billion in tax increases is enough to deal with a $1.2 trillion deficit. Or whether most of government spending and the debt is social programs. Or what the deficits will be for the next ten years for Obama’s proposed budget.

Things that, unlike angel choreography, can be looked up, cross-checked, and confirmed. Kind of like the tensile strength of steel.

If an engineer never heard of steel and builds a bridge out of copper that collapses, that’s an error of knowledge. Something corrected by long effort, sometimes generations of it. If a modern engineer still insists on building a bridge out of copper instead of structural steel after he’s been shown all the materials and their numbers, then yes, he’s stupid.

“In addition to these primary political rights, I believe the State has an obligation to provide every citizen with certain secondary benefits if possible. Among these are education to the limit of his ability to absorb it, medical care, employment, a dignified retirement, and assistance in the event of economic distress. It goes without saying that practical considerations of finance will limit these benefits, it is obvious that we can’t all have everything for nothing, and there are practical limits to such aid as the State can provide. But that obligation nonetheless exists, and it must be met as much as it practicably can and the financial resources of the state allow. The amount and limitations of this aid, and the taxation necessary to provide it, will be determined legislatively and democratically.”

Can’t you see the fundamental flaw in this concept? The “State” can provide nothing. It can only redistribute private wealth, and when this redistribution is decided “democratically,” what is the inevitable result?

A positive feedback loop, and we’re in the middle of it.

I’m afraid “practical considerations” left the building a long time ago.

Just imagine a learned Catholic and a Protestant scholar arguing. Or a Christian, debating a Jew or a Muslim. Sure, I’m an atheist, and I think all of them are full of shit, but I can’t use that subjective judgement and not expect them to be insulted and outraged.

Its also a question of manners and common courtesy. You don’t tell someone you disagree with he’s wrong, and then insist he’s stupid because he won’t change his mind.

Trotsky wrote a lot, you might be able to come up with a definition by reading his writings. But another scholar might not exactly agree with your interpretation. I distrust definitions, other than generalized descriptions based on obvious differences. Strict definitions lead to dogma, and dogma stifles thought.

These are just useful definitions, they are not from some dictionary where they are defined in exquisite detail. “Socialism” is like “Democracy” or “Fascism” or even “Capitalism”, no two historical examples are identical, and they are by no means mutually self-exclusive. They all cover a lot of ground, and there’s a lot of overlap.

If you want a capsule description of my politics, I’ll give it to you.
I believe in the private ownership of property, regulated by democratically elected government to prevent abuse of the worker and consumer by those of wealth and economic power. The power of the State must be kept to a minimum as much as possible, but my guiding principle is “In the absence of proper government, the powerful will simply take from the weak.” A free market can help, but it is not enough.

In my opinion, phe primary purpose of government is to protect us from domestic criminals, foreign enemies, and the greed and avarice of those who control wealth and property.

My most useful guide to my ideal government is the Declaration of the Rights of Man (1789). Although the American Bill of Rights (1791) ain’t a bad start either. I suspect the two documents influenced each other greatly.

In addition to these primary political rights, I believe the State has an obligation to provide every citizen with certain secondary benefits if possible. Among these are education to the limit of his ability to absorb it, medical care, employment, a dignified retirement, and assistance in the event of economic distress. It goes without saying that practical considerations of finance will limit these benefits, it is obvious that we can’t all have everything for nothing, and there are practical limits to such aid as the State can provide. But that obligation nonetheless exists, and it must be met as much as it practicably can and the financial resources of the state allow. The amount and limitations of this aid, and the taxation necessary to provide it, will be determined legislatively and democratically.

This is particularly the case of education. Under no circumstances must education be rationed only to those who can afford it. This deprives the ability of every citizen to better himself and distributes it solely to those who are wealthy. That is intolerable.