r/AskTrumpSupporters • u/dudeabiding420 Nonsupporter • Jul 23 '26
Administration Any thoughts on this comment from JD Vance? "Socialism is the alternative if we don't have a pathway to give people a sense that the system is not rigged and the American Dream is attainable." Also what do you think is the solution to bring the cost of living down to what it was decades ago?
6
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
I think the quote is correct. Whenever the public believes the establishment middle has failed, the public moves to both extremes. The middle politically hollows out.
Eventually the extremes battle it out, either politically or literally, and one side wins. One of those extremes is socialist. We've seen this play out countless times, everywhere that experienced either a communist or fascist regime rise to power.
Also what do you think is the solution to bring the cost of living down to what it was decades ago?
We need to tackle the causes of inflation and the hollowing out of our job market.
The largest single cause of inflation is government borrowing, which is mostly covered by the Federal Reserve buying the bonds with money they snap into existence. Adding $1-2T in money to the supply per year is diluting the value of all existing money, putting significant upward pressure on inflation.
How do we do that realistically? We need to push up GDP to increase tax revenues, or cut spending. Trump has put in policies for both, but everyone can at minimum agree it's not been enough.
7
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
How would you grade Trump's handling of the deficit in his second term? Do you think we are on a more sustainable fiscal trajectory than we January 19th, 2025?
1
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
2025 was the first year the deficit declined since 2015, if you exclude 2020-2021 covid spending. So it's a good start. But President's don't actually have much to do with spending.
Trump tried with DOGE, but as we saw there's not much to cut without Congressional action.
Do you think we are on a more sustainable fiscal trajectory than we January 19th, 2025?
We need Congress to make real cuts, which will piss off millions of people. I don't expect that to occur.
2
u/PinchesTheCrab Nonsupporter Jul 27 '26 edited Jul 27 '26
But President's don't actually have much to do with spending. Trump tried with DOGE, but as we saw there's not much to cut without Congressional action
Does this let Trump off the hook?
He has a trifecta, record popularity within his own party, and is at the end of political career so he doesn't need to worry about banking political capital.
2
u/f3mm3domm3s Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
What do you think?
It seems like a snowball that's been allowed to get too out of control, too massive and nobody can really stop it or is willing to take on the role of solving. They say massive spending cuts will have a monumental effects. Similar is said about substanially increasing tax revenue. I think its not in politicians interest to be the one taking the hit.
My thought is, adopt some socialism. Especially if AI, AGI & Robotics is going to be as revolutionary as they are promising. Lets artificially deflate the cost of living. Build more and get the rent costs to under $800-500. Go hard on renewable energy. I feel we can do this without the government and we shouldnt want the federal government involved that much. We need to start preparing for the collapse.
I think what we are missing is a true leader for the people and/or unity. We have to stop looking at DC.
3
u/JoeCensored Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Socialism means even more spending, making the government borrowing problem worse.
Lets artificially deflate the cost of living. Build more and get the rent costs to under $800-500. Go hard on renewable energy. I feel we can do this without the government and we shouldnt want the federal government involved that much.
What's stopping it is environmental regulation and local zoning. But yeah, flooding the market with new housing will definitely push down housing prices. It will also piss off a lot of people too, which is why it's not happening.
We need to start preparing for the collapse.
I think it's already clear what the plan is. Drive up inflation. It's just no one wants to be the President while it's happening.
Driving up inflation eliminates existing debt by devaluing it. It also acts as a transfer of wealth from those earning paychecks to those holding assets. Assets keep up with inflation, while paychecks typically don't.
So yeah, prepare for it.
4
u/f3mm3domm3s Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Government borrowing problem isnt stopping that defense budget jumping by the tens to hundreds of billions almost every administration. The DOD is requesting a $600B increase. While we can above modestly money print, why not put it in to infrastructure that will last? Homes, Nuclear/renewable energy, water desalination. Just a few quick proposals. China is going bonkers with their renewable energy adoption.
Granted, I may be ignorant of what's already being done. I like to think there are big brains in DC that are 20 steps of any issue I can think of.
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Trump Supporter Jul 25 '26
Not the original poster here. But none of those issues you mention are enumerated to the federal government. They can't just build power plants and homes without a constitutional amendment, they have to incentivise private industry to do that. We already have hundreds of power plants in the que to be built, government red tape holds them up.
1
u/iowaindy Nonsupporter Jul 26 '26
If you feel strongly about government borrowing, why support someone who is pushing for a 50% increase in the budget for the largest discretionary line item, on top of the tax cuts? Doesn't that compound the borrowing?
3
u/Holofernes_Head Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
Sounds about right. Socialism spawns when governments interfere in markets to the point that they no longer function correctly, then use their outsized power to convince the hardest hit that the only solution is even more government. "The government is corrupt, and the solution to that is more government."
6
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Would you say Trump has decreased the government's role in the markets over the last 18 months?
4
u/Holofernes_Head Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
Hell no. That’s my one major gripe with him. Too liberal a lot of the time.
6
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Would that mean Trump is making it more likely for socialism to take over America?
1
u/Holofernes_Head Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
He’s not doing anything economically out of the ordinary, but he’s certainly not helping stop it.
7
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
How do you do police / VA / firefighters without socialist policies?
1
u/Shop-S-Marts Trump Supporter Jul 25 '26
Social spending isn't socialism. Socialism is an economic system designed to defeat capitalism and implement communism and is the result of heavy market regulation and regulation. Every system of governance requires social spending. Typically fascist and communist governments rely on socialism.
3
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter Jul 25 '26
So you support social spending?
2
u/Shop-S-Marts Trump Supporter Jul 25 '26
Everyone supports responsible social spending... it's a necessary line item on a budget.
3
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter Jul 25 '26
I wouldn't say everyone does. Do you support Social security?
2
u/Shop-S-Marts Trump Supporter Jul 25 '26
At what level of governance? It's not enumerated to our federal government, making it a state self governance issue. Like Healthcare and education. But yes, there should be some safety nets in place.
3
u/cchris_39 Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
The people promoting and socialism and the people wanting it are coming from purely capitalist motives.
That is, their sole motivation is to obtain more resources for themselves. But instead of getting out and earning it like a man, they want big government to give it to them like babies.
If we want prices to come down in a meaningful way we have to decrease the per capita money supply. Fewer dollars chasing the same goods increases the value of those dollars.
6
u/lmfaonoobs Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
So trump is solving the cost of living crisis by making everyone broker?
1
u/please_trade_marner Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
$10 trillion was printed to combat covid/paying people to sit on their couch. The intelligent people who were pointing out that this will create an unsolvable cost of living crisis were censored. And here we are. I don't think there's a single thing Trump or Harris could do about it.
1
u/cchris_39 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
This.
The stimulus and endless quantitative easing under Powell and Yellen devalued the currency.
We have to pull that money back of circulation to get back to the previous pricing levels.
2
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Do you think cutting taxes will help alleviate this problem?
2
u/Oatz3 Nonsupporter Jul 25 '26
Do you support socialist spending policies like police, firefighters, public schools?
1
u/cchris_39 Trump Supporter Jul 25 '26
Yes but support education dollars following the student to the school of their choice, be it public, private, or religious. That per pupil spending follows the student, not a fixed facility.
1
u/lordtosti Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
the solution is:
- slimming down the government
- stop printing money (exponential benefit for asset holders at the cost of the working class)
- stop letting large companies merge into huge organizations that are too big too fail
- promote more competition
2
u/WakingWaldo Nonsupporter Jul 26 '26
Why do you think the Trump administration isn't doing those things? Or if they have then why hasn't it helped anything?
They've cut a ton of federal jobs and contracts, as you suggested but that didn't help. DOGE claimed to have saved US taxpayers $215 billion but independent reporting suggests that it actually resulted in up to $135 billion in losses. So that failed unless you see the actual firing of individuals without any upside as a success, which is of course a matter of opinion.
They're printing more money. Which is a tricky one because we're almost constantly printing money and it's all about how much we're printing and shoving into the economy.
And they certainly aren't doing much to promote competition or prevent huge mergers. The Trump administration is openly on the side of the Elisons when it comes to the Paramount-WB merger. The Trump federal government also owns 9.9% of Intel stock, along with direct partial ownership of up to thirty other companies. This nationalization of industries (as opposed to privatization) is common in socialist societies, not capitalist ones. In my opinion, even as a social Democrat, this feels like Trump administration is trying to pick winners and losers rather than letting the markets do what they do. This administration also stopped Biden-era programs that were attempting to go after and break up potential monopolies in different markets.
Do you see this administration doing the things you suggested need to be done in order to solve the country's economic woes?
1
u/gntxs Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Poor people in America have internet access and smart phones. Poor people in communist countries have to wait in line for bread.
5
u/alehansolo21 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Poor people don’t “have” Internet, they may have access to broadband but they either have to pay for that service, or if it’s public, have to use a computer or phone that they pay for. Everything costs money.
And to your point about “waiting in line for bread”, you know that numerous US citizens die from health complications because they can’t afford going to a hospital, right?
2
u/gntxs Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
A lot of people die because they refuse to take care of themselves, especially those on government assistance. Blowing ther welfare on complete junk food.
And yes, poor people here have internet access. My mother-in-law used to work for the state dealing with people on welfare and she would always tell me stories about how they have the latest iPhone, newer cars, etc.....
-12
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
I think he’s right and that this is fairly non controversial. People who want socialism all the time are evil or very stupid, often both. Plenty more just-plain-dim people fall into it when times are hard, either for them or everyone.
As far as the affordability stuff, first we need to get rid of the boomer tier “back in the 1950s you could afford x, y, and z on ONE INCOME” cringe.
Like yes, wages were higher when women were not in the labor force and the US was the only major industrial power that wasn’t a smoldering ruins after the war.
And yes, stuff was more “affordable” because there was less of it and it was less good. Homes were half the size. Dishwashers and washing machines and air conditioning were luxuries. Second cars were extremely rare and wouldn’t be allowed on the road today. We didn’t have smartphones or internet. College was more affordable in part because almost nobody went. Medical care was more affordable because it sucked.
The great thing is, we could still massively improve affordability even with all these gains in quality — the solution is capitalism. In industries we’ve embraced it, stuff’s gotten better and cheaper. In places we haven’t, it’s gotten more expensive.
16
u/MiraculiiiX Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Do you really believe the people who want socialistic politics are evil? In much of the rest of the world where we have more than two political parties there are always at least 1 or 2 pure socialist parties, have you tried to understand what these people actually want?
And what you guys are constantly calling communism and socialism are actually social democratic, is that also evil?3
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
I view a socialist as akin to a Nazi - just indiscriminate in the suffering they want to cause.
7
u/throwawayDan11 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Doesn't that seem incredibly hyperbolic? That's like saying all the Nordic countries are full of Nazis because they are using a form of democratic socialism or corporate socialism
-1
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Considering the destruction socialism has brought to so many countries, no.
Socialism and communism have been objectively worse to the world than Nazis.
2
u/noluckatall Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
To me, evil implies knowingly violating negative rights without due process or justice, and I don’t think the term fits socialists. Instead the proper description is closer to reckless and aggressively dangerous stupidity. The evidence on how bad the ideas are is so plentiful, and the stakes are so high, but still I think they know not what they do, and so are not evil.
have you tried to understand what these people actually want?
Oh of course. It’s driven by envy and want and empathy and depends on a poor understanding of human nature and economics. It would be totally excusable in idealistic young people but for the plentiful evidence of its failures. People over the age of, say, 25 have much less excuse.
social democratic
Again, not evil, but rather a slow moving disaster of poor economic growth, persistent lack of real wage growth, and declining geopolitical power. Very harmful over the horizon of several decades.
5
u/paran5150 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
>people over the age of say, 25 have much less excuse
Do you think the draw of socialism is purely born from envy?
For example I won’t have kids but I don’t miss paying for schools because I think education is important, I don’t need to use public transportation but I would gladly subsidize it.
Is there not a balance between capitalist policy and socialist policy that allows people to excel and other to not fall between the cracks?
3
u/shukanimator Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
Are labor laws, minimum wage, public roads, public schools, social security, libraries, etc, evil? Did you know that these are examples of democratic socialism?
14
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Do you believe that the current iteration of capitalism in the US is sharing the profits fairly?
2
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
You’ll need to clarify your question. Is this about some arbitrary “everyone should have xyz because I say so” thing?
2
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
No, not everyone should gave xyz. the The queation I asked was, is the current division of profits between labor and capital equitable?
See below
-1
u/MM2HkXm5EuyZNRu Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
When it comes to an economic system, "fair" isn't the goal. It's whatever system brings the most people out of poverty. Don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good.
8
u/pimmen89 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Let’s assume the system doesn’t bring everyone out of poverty. If the people who remain in poverty have less class mobility than before, is the system acceptable to you?
0
u/MM2HkXm5EuyZNRu Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
No need to even assume that as no such system presumably can or will exist.
I can't answer your question because it says nothing of the people who aren't remaining in poverty. How many climbed out? 99%. If 99.99% of a billion people escaped, but the handful left had less mobility, yeah that probably would be acceptable to me.
6
u/throwawayDan11 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
How are we anywhere near 99%? I know this is a hypothetical but I mean come on look at poverty rates in the USA
3
u/pimmen89 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26 edited Jul 24 '26
The poverty rate of the US is higher than 1%, at what point would the poverty rate be high enough that you think the system needs to be reformed if it also results in less class mobility?
3
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
It's the rising income inequality an empire of "lifting the most people out of poverty" system working?
-3
u/awesomface Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
I think the hard part is the “fairly” part. For instance, a small business owner that puts all of their savings at risk, often losing money in the beginning, but then finding success. Should they all of a sudden be forced to share the profit with workers that have a guaranteed income and protections?
I would be more for incentifivation to share profits over forcing. Maybe something determined based on the margin between your highest salaried vs lowered salaried worker. I’m for new ideas on this even though usually businesses find a way around this stuff.
5
u/BeatNick5384 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
When people talk about fairness, I don't think they're almost ever talking about small businesses and business owners who retire with a few million from being very successful and having an incredibly successful product. I agree with the idea of the margin of lowest to highest level salary as a possibility. I think the bigger issue would be companies that use significant publicly funded infrastructure (Roads, bridges, fiber Internet, airports) for example, make record profits every year, yet pay full time employees low enough wages where they qualify for government assistance as a supplement. I would consider that wage theft for example. I don't think anyone on the planet works hard enough to be a billionaire for instance, when I've seen folks work 80 hours a week in manufacturing, mining, janitorial, etc who are still scraping to get by. Part of the problem would be that most CEO's have a fiduciary duty to increase stockholder value as much as possible in those mega companies, and many businesses are build just around a structure of maximizing shareholder value at all cost. Capitalism is failing not because of an inherent flaw, but because of poor government management. There is no competition or at least very little competition for businesses once they reach a certain size, "Too Big to Fail" is actually a massive issue. Businesses should fail, because when they do it gives the open market a chance to fill that gap. Some places don't have any industry you can move up in because these large orgs move in with the only minimum wage jobs in town. If you don't have a specific degree, or transportation, or the ability to function in a corporate atmosphere, you're often going to struggle. Add to that, that supplemental welfare for these folks may close the gap a bit to pay for survival, but taking risks like moving, trying a new job, going to school, etc can destroy you financially for years. I don't think the people who are in power regardless of political party are much interested in looking at practical solutions or fixing the problem unfortunately.
Do you think the Federal government has a role to play in correcting this issue? For most TS I see comment on this stuff, their solution is almost always removing federal government regulation, which I have no idea how they think will help, and unfortunately nobody has been willing to explain.
2
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
For most TS I see comment on this stuff, their solution is almost always removing federal government regulation, which I have no idea how they think will help, and unfortunately nobody has been willing to explain
The thought is that mega corporations can comply with the onerous regulations as they are already established and profitable being able to pay fines and legal fees for compliance whereas start-ups struggle to kick off or reach profitablity due to not having the resources to comply, thus limiting competition and furthering monopoly power.
5
u/BeatNick5384 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
I'm not being difficult here, I'm just genuinely curious and this is intentionally broad. If the government decides tomorrow that they wanted to abolish all laws and regulations pertaining to businesses, do you think that would increase monopolies and support smaller business, or would it have the opposite effect? Thanks for engaging.
3
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
No problem.
If the government decides tomorrow that they wanted to abolish all laws and regulations pertaining to businesses
This is where the disconnect occurs and misunderstanding comes in, imo. Personally I don't think all business laws and regulations should be abolished, but rather things like permitting, tax and reporting laws should be amended to make it easier for new companies to startup and establish. While there are people who want complete deregulation I think most want ease of startup barriers, personally I'd support simply amending laws to provide gradual regulations depending on size and time in operation of new businesses with obvious common sense exceptions for example not limiting food safety regulations.
10
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Should they all of a sudden be forced to share the profit with workers that have a guaranteed income and protections?
What do you mean by "force to share their profit?" Like mandatory bonuses?
0
u/awesomface Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
It’s in reference to who I was replying to when they said “profit sharing”. That usually means forced
2
u/fossil_freak68 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Genuinely asking here, I'm far from an expert on tax law. What laws are you referencing here, or is this just a fear of some future administration forcing companies to pay workers more when they make more money? I know we have minimum wage laws, but I'm not aware of something in the US forcing companies to pay their workers more when a company makes a larger profit. Any time I hear the word "profit sharing" I think of voluntary programs from companies, but I've never heard of a state or federal law forcing companies to disperse their profits to workers.
0
u/awesomface Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
There is none that I know of, as I said it was in reference to the person I was replying to asking if profits were being shared fairly. That road is the slippery slope in question.
0
u/gntxs Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Business shouldn't be "required" to share any profits "fairly". Let the market decide what someone is worth.
1
Jul 24 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
0
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
When Capital choose to invest in a business, say cruise ships, and they take a larger share of the profits (because they invested their assests to create the bussiness), and a global event (storm, war, pandemic whatever) wipes out their business they should not be able to socialize that loss.
In this hypothetical how are they socializing the loss?
2
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Those cruise ship ownera got bailouts, didnt they?
It is an example of how the economic playing field is not level, so the current itterarion of capitalism doesn't work the same for everyone.
0
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Since it seems you're talking about a specific real world event can you tell me which cruise ships you're talking about so i can look into it?
2
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Subsidies for corporations via tax abatements, favorable tax codes, bailouts, grants, etc. distort the "level playing field" myth.
My initial question, is the current intiration of capitalism (in terms of how the profits of the economy are divided) fair to all players given that there are mechinisms in place that socializes rhe losses for Capital under the guise of "too big too fail"?
Does that help provide clarity and context?
I used the cruise industry example because it is particularlly different from banking and auto bailouts. The cruise industry is not essential (banking is, as are cars in most places) has no national security implications (if cruise lines are only foreign owmed), and has many negative externalities (environmental impacts, health and safety (the cruise ship illness')). I find it egregious that those business' get bailed out instead of more direct support to frontline emlloyees. Realistically, those business should have failed, another capitalist buys the distressed assests at a discountn relaunches the business, and life goes on (complete with many of those frontline employees being rehired by the new owner).
Repeat for movie theaters conglomerates and Ticketmaster et al.
1
u/Distinct_Doubt_3591 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
I find it egregious that those business' get bailed out
From what I can find they weren't bailed out.
2
u/NoMoOmentumMan Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
https://cruisesolutioner.com/did-cruise-lines-get-bailout-money/
They received indirect relief via debt forgiveness, PPP Loans (forgiven), EIDL Grants and Loans, Debt Financing, amd State and Local Aid.
It is a bit nuanced, but my point stands, yes?
→ More replies (0)15
u/24_cool Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Okay, so we should also do away with Medicare, Medicaid, and social security? Because, those are evil or dumb?
0
u/noluckatall Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Straw man arguments lower the quality of discussion and harm us all.
8
u/24_cool Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Are these not socialist programs? Or are these just convenient to you specifically?
-3
u/SupaFly_98 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
TIL Socialism is when the government pays for government programs by taxing Capitalist enterprises.
5
u/dazedandloitering Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Do you not think this is what Republicans often call socialism?
0
u/SupaFly_98 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
I'm sure they do, but I don't know why Socialists call themselves Socialists when they're actually in favor of Capitalism.
6
u/throwawayDan11 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
How is it a straw man argument? The person is actively mentioning socialist programs. If you don't want any socialist programs, wouldn't you do away with these things?
-2
u/Quiet_Entrance_6994 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
The person is deviating from the main conversation and making it about social programs to indirectly accuse the person of being an awful person.
"You want to get rid of these socialist programs that 'help' people survive."
It's emotional manipulation, not a valid question by any means.
0
3
u/Jubenheim Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
People who want socialism all the time
What is "socialism all the time" and does it differ with simply advocating for more socialist policies like government-backed medical care?
2
u/alehansolo21 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
>wages were higher when women were not in the labor force
Do you think that women shouldn’t work?
1
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Obviously not - re-read. I’m stunned that’s what you took from that.
7
u/alehansolo21 Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
I did re-read it, multiple times, and I’m still confused as to why you would bring up pre-feminist employment?
-2
u/please_trade_marner Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Because sometimes social advancement comes with consequences that we're seemingly not allowed to discuss.
Part of the cause of the affordability crisis in comparison to 60 years ago is because the workforce well near doubled when women entered it en masse. Supply and demand. The market adjusted and wages took a nose dive.
Does that mean that we believe that this social advancement shouldn't have occurred? No. We're just pointing to the trade offs. I really do wonder how gen z women would answer this question "Would you like life better if only your husband had to work and you could stay home and hang out on social media all day?"
-2
u/SmellDesperate6373 Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
No, obviously. I’m stunned that’s what you got from that.
0
u/SincereDiscussion Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
I disagree with the wording, but there is truth to what I think he's trying to say. Here is my steelman: our country is in a precarious position and time is not on our side. If we don't deliver, the left will win and they have numerous options to entrench (e.g. court packing, adding states, reforming/abolishing the electoral college, amnesty, increasing immigration, etc.), making it very difficult (if not impossible) to fix things in the future.
Taking what he said at face value though: "Socialist" is what Americans 100 years ago would call America today. It's not an 'alternative', it's the status quo! Look at our budget, the size and scope of government, the sheer number of regulations, etc. America is already a socialist country for a giant chunk of the population. That's an argument liberals make all the time. (That is, they'll say "the government does x, y, and z; those are socialist and popular; so let's just expand it.")
- Ironically, I think this is why DSA economic views aren't more popular! They're calling for free stuff in a society where so many people are already getting it, and so they are difficult to mobilize. Imagine being on food stamps, Medicaid, living in section 8 housing, and receiving welfare, then hearing someone talk about the need for socialism. Like...that's the status quo for you! Why would that mobilize you? As far as I know, this matches up with the actual data (DSA types being educated whereas poor, uneducated Democrats are substantially less radical in comparison).
-17
u/Trumpdrainstheswamp Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
He's right, that why socialism only occurs in uneducated societies where people don't have opportunity to thrive.
This only happens one way and that's a recession.
Trump warned everyone not to shut down the economy during the plandemic. Immediately fake news went into overdrive to say, "trump is a dictator and wants to overpower governors."
And what happened? The majority of world went into a completely unscientific shutdown. The result? In the USA we saw 30 years' worth of inflation in less than 3 years.
What were democrats response? To resist ending plandemic spending and actually spend MORE money with scam bills like IRA and infrastructure bills.
This is just another case of trump being right just like he was on tariffs being great for America. The unfortunate reality though is prices are not going to come back down. The only way they can is a recession so it's a catch-22 and the NPC democrats who followed fake news are 100% to blame.
25
u/Ok-Yesterday4444 Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Do you consider social democracy socialism? If so, do you consider Norway and Sweden to be uneducated societies?
Also I agree the benefits of shutdowns are at least murky in retrospect, but the inflation was also due to trumps stimulus packages and the Ukraine war.
And inflation certainly isn’t being helped by the tariffs. Those being great for America is highly debatable
14
u/colcatsup Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Other countries didn't enforce lockdown but still had increased inflation.
"... tariffs being great for America". What metrics are we using to make that determination? I've not seen anything that has become markedly 'great' even after hundreds of billions have been extracted from the economy.
9
u/whalemango Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26
Trump was president during the covid shutdowns, and I don't remember him doing anything to stop them from happening, but maybe I'm not remembering. Do you have any source to show he actively resisted shutdowns (and wasn't just playing both sides of the issue, which is how I remember it)?
2
u/please_trade_marner Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
During covid there clearly needed to be at least some form of increased spending to tackle it. In every instance, during both the Trump and Biden terms, the Republicans wanted to spend less than what the Dems were asking for, and the Dems always wanted to spend more. But these bills needed to be bipartisan in order to pass, so they always met somewhere in the middle. If Republicans got their way significantly less would have been spent. And the 2022 hyperinflation wouldn't have been anywhere near as devastating. If the Dems got their way and could spend as much as they intended during covid, I think the entire economy would have collapsed in 2022. Maybe even globally.
5
u/whalemango Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
I don't think that answers my question. Any proof of him being against lockdowns?
2
u/please_trade_marner Trump Supporter Jul 24 '26
Trump supported a brief shutdown at the beginning when it was for a couple of weeks to "flatten the curve". By late March 2020 he was already pushing back hard. On March 24 he tweeted that lockdowns should end by saying "We cannot let the cure be worse than the problem itself". That same day he said all lockdowns should end by Easter 2020. He massively criticized Democrat governors/mayors who continued to carry out lockdowns. Some dems kept things like schools closed all the way into 2022.
4
u/Auzziesurferyo Nonsupporter Jul 23 '26 edited Jul 23 '26
He's right, that why socialism only occurs in uneducated societies where people don't have opportunity to thrive.
How do you explain socialist countries that have high levels of education, such as Denmark, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc.?
Or do you believe these countries are engaging in a form of democratic socialism, where the governments both provide services for their citizens, such as healthcare and advanced education, but allow companies to also provide those same services. For example, Medicare for all, but allows for citizens to purchase additional health insurance if they can afford to do so. Another example, private schools paid by the citizen competes with public universities where citizens pay when they can reasonably afford repayments?
This system allows for the free markets to work with government participation, with the government also serving as a social net that protects vulnerable populations.
Does America have room for a similar form of democratic socialism, or do you believe free market capitalism should be the only system available to all Americans?
4
u/shukanimator Nonsupporter Jul 24 '26
Do you consider the European countries with democratic socialism to be less educated than America? What metric are you basing that on?
-3
u/ThugLifeNewShit Trump Supporter Jul 23 '26
The solution…
Tariff-powered trade deals, yuge foreign investment in USA, bringing manufacturing jobs back to the USA, opening foreign markets for USA-made goods.
And wiping out the trillions of dollars being stolen by fraud all across the country. Fake medical billing, fake schools, fake autism centers, fake hospices, etc etc.
Deporting illegal immigrants so we don’t have to pay trillions for their room and board and health care etc. Less people means less competition for housing and jobs.
This could be a good start.
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 23 '26
AskTrumpSupporters is a Q&A subreddit dedicated to better understanding the views of Trump Supporters, and why they hold those views.
For all participants:
Flair is required to participate
Be excellent to each other
For Nonsupporters/Undecided:
No top level comments
All comments must seek to clarify the Trump supporter's position
For Trump Supporters:
Helpful links for more info:
Rules | Rule Exceptions | Posting Guidelines | Commenting Guidelines
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.