Socialism

[mongo18]

While necessary to provide public services and defense, let loose, it's like a cancer. It further weakens the downtrodden, who it claims to help, and puts more power in the hands of overlords. It creates a dependent class, which it needs to remain subservient.

You keep talking about socialism like it's heroin, one little taste and everything falls apart. It's unbridled capitalism that's America's problem.
Working class taxes pay for hospitals, but the working class can't afford health care. Working class taxes pay for universities, but the working class can't afford tertiary education. A person in the USA can have a full time job and still live below the poverty line. A family of 4 can have both parents working full time and still live below the poverty line.
The reason we, as a species, formed societies, is to share resources for the good of the majority. And the reason we created governments is to administer those resources, for the good of the majority. Governments are supposed to represent the people. They're supposed to take the contributions, in the form of taxes, and spend it on the most beneficial combination of infrastructure, education, health, defense, and social safety nets for the majority of people. They're supposed to represent the people against big corporations, through regulation, so that public lands and resources aren't harvested wholesale for the benefit of a few, and that land, air, and water aren't polluted, destroyed, and otherwise left unusable or harmful to the population.

The US government is an abject failure in all of these things, since well before trump came along. Those parents working full time jobs and still living below the poverty line can't afford clothes and food for their kids, but they get to sit and watch while their government hands their tax dollars over to massive corporations that have been run into the ground by some self-important CEO who couldn't manage a fuck in a brothel but was given the opportunity because he fell out of some billionaire's wife's crotch, so that he can still collect his $100 million salary, while his laid off employees are labelled takers and whiners for wanting help to get through their own tough times. "Ooh, better not help these people, that'll create a welfare state! Better just shovel some more money over to the banks and they'll use it to create jobs somehow!"

Don't worry Rey, the US is under NO imminent threat of becoming a socialist state. Maybe if more people in the states were as terrified of rampant capitalism as they are of a small amount of socialism you might be able to find your way closer to that balance though.

Edit: a couple of headlines that just came up after I wrote this:
Banks are allowed to intercept the $1200 stimulus directly and apply it to the recipient's debts. https://prospect.org/coronavirus/banks-can-grab-stimulus-check-pay-debts/
More than 82% of the tax relief in the coronavirus package benefit those earning over $1 million. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/14/coronavirus-law-congress-tax-change/

For sure, socialism is the big threat. Wouldn't want to rock that boat that's working so well for everybody...

 

[Rey C.]

You keep talking about socialism like it's heroin, one little taste and everything falls apart.

I do? When? Not sure where you got that from. Neither stated nor implied by me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I said quite the opposite, as in finding an optimal mix.

It's unbridled capitalism that's America's problem.

That may be your view, but the U.S. doesn't have what I'd call "unbridled capitalism". And anyway, I don't see that as the problem in the U.S. How do you figure that's the (or even main) problem here? What does this pareto look like?

Working class taxes pay for hospitals, but the working class can't afford health care. Working class taxes pay for universities, but the working class can't afford tertiary education.

No they don't - not even close. A lot of people like to sing that song about "the workin' man" this and "the workin' man" that, but the facts tell a very different story. For one, almost half of the people don't pay (net) taxes at the federal level, and when they do, it's a very small contribution. With all of the various credits, many actually get money back. The top 50% pays 97% of taxes at the federal level. The bottom 50% pays 3%. The top 10% of earners pays roughly 70% of taxes at the federal level. These aren't value judgements - simply what IRS data shows us.

I used to spend a fair amount of time discussing my ideas on health care and insurance reforms on here, and I had a thread about education fairly recently too. But I soon realized that people on here would rather complain about the sickness (or this or that politician or party), rather than talk about potential cures and solutions. So, I stopped wasting my time. Are there various categories of social problems and unfairness here? Yep. But since some involve the socialist schemes that we already have (shitty VA hospitals, substandard public housing and crappy public schools, to name just a few), I understood why some would rather avoid getting down in the weeds in a comprehensive discussion. They just want to make a big blanket statement or observation, followed by a big blanket solution and go back to their happy lives. And that's totally cool with me. Like I said before, it's just a chat forum on a porn board. It's all good.

A person in the USA can have a full time job and still live below the poverty line. A family of 4 can have both parents working full time and still live below the poverty line.

Yes, that is possible. To (really) address that issue, I'd say that it would be necessary to actually study that population and see what factors are contributing most to the problem. At the highest level, the problem is, income doesn't meet the cost of living. So what factors are causing that (educational deficiencies, lack of skills or skill training, lack of available job opportunities, substance abuse issues, poor life choices in general, discrimination or favoritism, etc.)? I'm not a social scientist. But from observation, I would say that some people are where they are because of systemic failures, and some causations are linked to the individual or his/her behavior and choices. I have no idea what the breakdown is. A lot of people want an easy-squeezy answer to that issue: give 'em some UBI checks... and then we'll drive back to the 'burbs. They need housing? Cool. We propose the New Cabrini Greens Homes.

The reason we, as a species, formed societies, is to share resources for the good of the majority. And the reason we created governments is to administer those resources, for the good of the majority. Governments are supposed to represent the people. They're supposed to take the contributions, in the form of taxes, and spend it on the most beneficial combination of infrastructure, education, health, defense, and social safety nets for the majority of people. They're supposed to represent the people against big corporations, through regulation, so that public lands and resources aren't harvested wholesale for the benefit of a few, and that land, air, and water aren't polluted, destroyed, and otherwise left unusable or harmful to the population.

Early societies were formed because there's safety in numbers. And early (and many later) governments did not represent the people. Social welfare was an afterthought in many/most cases. What most governments did, and do, is work to maintain the power of the government (or their party). That's not a comment on right or wrong, or what should or shouldn't be, it's simply how it's always been. In representative democracies, especially ones where the population has access to information, voters should be willing to vote for those who represent their interests - not just the one who's on their favorite team. Speaking of voting, what is the voter participation rate in the U.S. anyway? Last I checked, votin' didn't cost nothin'. Maybe some didn't get that memo.

The US government is an abject failure in all of these things, since well before trump came along. Those parents working full time jobs and still living below the poverty line can't afford clothes and food for their kids, but they get to sit and watch while their government hands their tax dollars over to massive corporations that have been run into the ground by some self-important CEO who couldn't manage a fuck in a brothel but was given the opportunity because he fell out of some billionaire's wife's crotch, so that he can still collect his $100 million salary, while his laid off employees are labelled takers and whiners for wanting help to get through their own tough times. "Ooh, better not help these people, that'll create a welfare state! Better just shovel some more money over to the banks and they'll use it to create jobs somehow!"

Uh, OK. You've got the podium on that one. I'm cool with opinions, beliefs and observations. Any proposals or solutions? One side has money and lobbyists and one side doesn't even vote. Doesn't take Jimmy the Greek to figure the odds on who will always win that game.

Don't worry Rey, the US is under NO imminent threat of becoming a socialist state. Maybe if more people in the states were as terrified of rampant capitalism as they are of a small amount of socialism you might be able to find your way closer to that balance though.

Can't say that I'm all that worried either way. But no, I don't think that it is. I think that there's a sufficient number of people who want reforms, but aren't keen on empowering pie-in-the-sky promise keepers to dole out slices of the pie to them. How does the old song go? Oh yeah, "vote for me and I'll set you free." Riiiiight.

For sure, socialism is the big threat. Wouldn't want to rock that boat that's working so well for everybody...

Nice sarcasm. So people who won't totally accept this, must be in love with that? Hmm, me thinks some red herring for lunch might be tasty.

My view is that only when more of the American people walk out of their self-imposed party-line prisons, and begin thinking for themselves - and act on those thoughts, will anything really change here. So many old lyrics run through my mind... but only it's because they're true:

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

 

[Straight Shooter]

Here are some images from Venezuela and Cuba. Because of socialism people have to wait in lines to get food.....oh wait, my bad. These pictures are were taken a few days ago in the U.S. These are literally bread lines.....

 

[mongo18]

I do? When? Not sure where you got that from. Neither stated nor implied by me. In fact, I'm pretty sure that I said quite the opposite, as in finding an optimal mix.

I thought it was pretty well covered in the quote I gave. Of course an optimal mix is needed, but socialism isn't like "like a cancer," it's more like an essential vitamin, to stick with the biology analogy. Too much can cause problems, agreed, but not enough and your overall health will be deficient.

That may be your view, but the U.S. doesn't have what I'd call "unbridled capitalism". And anyway, I don't see that as the problem in the U.S. How do you figure that's the (or even main) problem here?

I'd say it is quite likely the biggest single problem in the USA when it comes to how your government operates. You couldn't pass reasonable background checks for gun sales that were supported by 97% of the population because your senators are owned by gun lobbies. The best ROI an American business can get is to put their capital into political contributions. Sure, every government in the world does favors for the rich, but most of them try to hide it in amongst governing for the benefit of the people too. Your government doesn't even try to hide the fact that they're completely owned by campaign donors and lobbyists.
Of course lazy people like to sit back and shrug and say both sides are just as bad, but the democrats at least try to legislate for the benefit of the common people. Republicans don't.

No they don't - not even close. A lot of people like to sing that song about "the workin' man" this and "the workin' man" that, but the facts tell a very different story. For one, almost half of the people don't pay (net) taxes at the federal level, and when they do, it's a very small contribution. With all of the various credits, many actually get money back. The top 50% pays 97% of taxes at the federal level. The bottom 50% pays 3%. The top 10% of earners pays roughly 70% of taxes at the federal level. These aren't value judgements - simply what IRS data shows us.

That's an overly simplified argument that doesn't take into account sales and property taxes. Not to mention that the majority of earnings by the top earners isn't classified as income.
But even ignoring that, you're suggesting that the poor shouldn't have access to hospitals and health care because they don't pay very much in tax?

Yes, that is possible. To (really) address that issue, I'd say that it would be necessary to actually study that population and see what factors are contributing most to the problem. At the highest level, the problem is, income doesn't meet the cost of living. So what factors are causing that (educational deficiencies, lack of skills or skill training, lack of available job opportunities, substance abuse issues, poor life choices in general, discrimination or favoritism, etc.)? I'm not a social scientist. But from observation, I would say that some people are where they are because of systemic failures, and some causations are linked to the individual or his/her behavior and choices. I have no idea what the breakdown is. A lot of people want an easy-squeezy answer to that issue: give 'em some UBI checks... and then we'll drive back to the 'burbs. They need housing? Cool. We propose the New Cabrini Greens Homes.

Irrelevant drivel. Nobody's talking about UBI. Bottom line, in a developed nation, it shouldn't be possible for an employer to pay a full time worker such a low rate that they remain below poverty, regardless of the job or the employee. Government regulation can easily solve that one.

Early societies were formed because there's safety in numbers.

So, more sets of eyes to spot threats, and more bodies to defend against them? Like sharing of resources?
People pay taxes on the understanding that those taxes are going to be used to fund things that society needs. History is full of ex-governments who taxed the population and didn't put at least some of it to its intended use. There used to be a really great country that went to war over taxation without representation.

One side has money and lobbyists and one side doesn't even vote. Doesn't take Jimmy the Greek to figure the odds on who will always win that game.

And there's your rampant capitalism. It's the whole reason billionaires can have whatever laws they want, to the point of authoring their own laws that congress passes for them, while the government can't seem to manage to pass laws that almost everybody agrees on.
You keep talking about people not voting, but 3 million more people voted for Hillary Clinton than trump. We have compulsory voting here and I don't support it. People who don't know or care shouldn't vote. But everyone who wants to vote should be able to. In the US, the party in power has far too much control over the election process. How many elections have republicans won because they purged voter rolls, or closed down polling booths in certain areas, or imposed blatantly skewed ID requirements, like not accepting university ID but accepting gun club memberships? The only reason you have republicans in power right now is because the electoral system was weak and unprotected and they've raped it in every way possible.
You want solutions? Get corporate money out of politics. Overturn citizens united and put a reasonable limit on campaign budgets. Form an independent commission against corruption. Prosecute any congress man or woman who takes bribes, accepts gifts, or provides information or takes unsolicited advice from any other entity that's not in the interest of their constituents. Form an independent body to redraw every voting district in the country. Tie congressional salaries to the median income for the country, then you'll see wages go up.
Have a look at any other developed country in the world and you'll have thousands of ideas to fix your broken and corrupt system.

 

[Rey C.]

I thought it was pretty well covered in the quote I gave. Of course an optimal mix is needed, but socialism isn't like "like a cancer," it's more like an essential vitamin, to stick with the biology analogy. Too much can cause problems, agreed, but not enough and your overall health will be deficient.

Guess this part flew by you: I believe that limited socialism mixed with controlled capitalism is probably the best way to provide both social protections and economic opportunities.

I'd say it is quite likely the biggest single problem in the USA when it comes to how your government operates. You couldn't pass reasonable background checks for gun sales that were supported by 97% of the population because your senators are owned by gun lobbies.

Wow, 97%, huh? That's even more than MSNBC could dream up. But anyway, let's make believe that's true... you're telling me that in your socialist utopia, there will be no corruption and no lobbyists? That's so cool. But how? What sort of magic be this? Snap of the finger... wave of the wand?

It's cute that you want to believe that political influence peddling or corruption is exclusive to the capitalist economic model. I had a friend who worked for Citgo and lived in Venezuela until it went totally down the tubes. He told a different story about political corruption being exclusive to any particular economic system.

The best ROI an American business can get is to put their capital into political contributions.

Hmm... yes... that's uh... a very interesting concept.

Of course lazy people like to sit back and shrug and say both sides are just as bad, but the democrats at least try to legislate for the benefit of the common people. Republicans don't.

Of course naive people like to gather in whichever herd soothes their worried little minds with kind, sweet words, but hasn't done anything but feather its own nest and consolidate its power base. Yes, the Democrats have done a great job over the years. My dream is to sell my house and move to one of their inner city enclaves.

That's an overly simplified argument that doesn't take into account sales and property taxes.

Nothing simplified about it. I plainly stated that I was providing IRS data - which would only account for federal taxes. But since that didn't work out for you, if you'd rather hang your hat on sales and property taxes instead, who would pay the most in property taxes? The homeownership rate in the U.S. is roughly 60%. As you go up the income scale, ownership rates (and home values) increase - therefore, property tax contributions increase. Sales taxes, though regressive because the tax rate is the same for everyone, still don't account for enough funds to justify the inaccurate statement you made about hospitals and universities being funded by the working class.

To address inequities, we need to start with facts. A solution based on falsehoods and hyperbole isn't a very good solution.

Not to mention that the majority of earnings by the top earners isn't classified as income.

Please explain. In addition to wages and commissions, realized capital gains (short term and long term), dividends, rents, royalties, etc. are considered income.

But even ignoring that, you're suggesting that the poor shouldn't have access to hospitals and health care because they don't pay very much in tax?

Go read it again and tell me if that's what I suggested. Pay close attention to this part and that might provide a hint:

These aren't value judgements - simply what IRS data shows us.

Irrelevant drivel. Nobody's talking about UBI. Bottom line, in a developed nation, it shouldn't be possible for an employer to pay a full time worker such a low rate that they remain below poverty, regardless of the job or the employee. Government regulation can easily solve that one.

I know. I know. When there's any desire to actually get down in the weeds to talk about defining, measuring, analyzing, improving and controlling... it's "drivel" to those who just want to cast a big blanket over the issue and head back to the 'burbs (I think I said that already though). Details are the enemy of weak positions.

And what's gotten into you? Referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and other Green New Dealers as nobodys. Shame on you.

You want solutions? Get corporate money out of politics. Overturn citizens united and put a reasonable limit on campaign budgets. Form an independent commission against corruption. Prosecute any congress man or woman who takes bribes, accepts gifts, or provides information or takes unsolicited advice from any other entity that's not in the interest of their constituents. Form an independent body to redraw every voting district in the country. Tie congressional salaries to the median income for the country, then you'll see wages go up.
Have a look at any other developed country in the world and you'll have thousands of ideas to fix your broken and corrupt system.

Well, at least you're finally onto something substantive now. Sounds fine to me. (/sarcasm on)And with the Democrats choosing Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren over a dude who has spent the better part of his political career as an influence peddler for the credit card companies and money center banks, I'm sure that dream is just over the horizon.(/sarcasm off)

See, I'm not opposed to those suggestions and ideas. But the do this and do that is going to require someone (a lot of someones) to drive the initiatives. What some of you folks need to learn is that in order to get even a few of these things done, you'll have to learn to build coalitions - not just be accusatory bomb throwers. Too many of you demand ideological purity, and then you seem surprised that establishment types (even in your own party) roll over you like a bulldozer. IMO, you'll (we'll) do well enough to reform this system, much less totally change it. But that big windmill will always be there for you, if you just want to keep trying what hasn't worked so far. Good luck.

 

[Rey C.]

Here are some images from Venezuela and Cuba. Because of socialism people have to wait in lines to get food.....oh wait, my bad. These pictures are were taken a few days ago in the U.S. These are literally bread lines.....

You mean pictures taken since the U.S. government shut down the economy? I suspect each of those cars is going to get a lot more than just bread. At least in my area, full meals are being handed out. And many restaurants are participating in free food pickup programs for families with kids. Maybe in Cuba they might get bread. Venezuela? Maybe slow moving rats. Shouldn't joke about that though... it's a damn sad situation. And with the price of oil now hitting rock bottom with today's crash (futures actually went negative), it'll just get worse for them. Wonder what kind of steak Maduro is having? I'm guessing prime rib.

 

[mongo18]

Guess this part flew by you: I believe that limited socialism mixed with controlled capitalism is probably the best way to provide both social protections and economic opportunities.

Nope, saw that. Also saw:

let loose, it's like a cancer. It further weakens the downtrodden, who it claims to help, and puts more power in the hands of overlords. It creates a dependent class

Guess this part flew by you: Of course an optimal mix is needed, but socialism isn't like "like a cancer," it's more like an essential vitamin, to stick with the biology analogy. Too much can cause problems, agreed, but not enough and your overall health will be deficient.

Wow, 97%, huh? That's even more than MSNBC could dream up.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners - https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

in your socialist utopia, there will be no corruption and no lobbyists? That's so cool. But how? What sort of magic be this? Snap of the finger... wave of the wand?

Guess this part flew by you: Sure, every government in the world does favors for the rich, but most of them try to hide it in amongst governing for the benefit of the people too. Your government doesn't even try to hide the fact that they're completely owned by campaign donors and lobbyists.

Please explain.

Trust freezing, tax havens, stock options, shell companies, equity swaps, deferred compensation, don't you claim to know things about finance? And what's the tax rate on capital gains vs income?

it's "drivel" to those who just want to cast a big blanket over the issue and head back to the 'burbs (I think I said that already though). Details are the enemy of weak positions.

Guess this part flew by you: in a developed nation, it shouldn't be possible for an employer to pay a full time worker such a low rate that they remain below poverty, regardless of the job or the employee. Government regulation can easily solve that one.

Referring to Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Mark Zuckerberg, Sheryl Sandberg and other Green New Dealers as nobodys.

Didn't realize any of those people were part of this conversation.

people who won't totally accept this, must be in love with that?

Yet you repeatedly claim that anyone who doesn't outright reject both parties must be a mindless sheep in a party line prison. Hmmm, me thinks some hypocrisy for lunch might be tasty.

Do I really need to provide you with a list of all the things the democrats have done or tried to do to protect the working class, provide things like health care and education, increase government transparency and accountability? I never said the dems were perfect, or all that great. But they're objectively a hell of a lot better for the average American than republicans are. It's called the lesser of two evils.

But sure, you just sit up on that pedestal you've put yourself on and bleeting about how we need to scrap the whole system and start again, if you just want to keep trying what hasn't worked so far.

 

[Rey C.]

Too much can cause problems

So "let loose", it is a problem. Glad that you can at least wrap your head around that much.

Support for universal background checks is itself almost universal, 97 - 2 percent, including 97 - 3 percent among gun owners - https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

https://poll.qu.edu/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=2521

Depending on the broad wording, even I might answer affirmatively to such a poll. But best of luck getting private citizen sellers to go through a UBC system, or even getting it enforced - especially with some in state and local law enforcement saying that they will not enforce it. To make such a system work, you'd need a national firearms registry, among other things, for tracking purposes, as well as supportive local enforcement mechanisms. And that's where it gets sticky. Yeah, I know... those damn details again! But we don't need no stinkin' details, do we? It's easy!

Guess this part flew by you: Sure, every government in the world does favors for the rich, but most of them try to hide it in amongst governing for the benefit of the people too. Your government doesn't even try to hide the fact that they're completely owned by campaign donors and lobbyists.

Ah, good to know. So as long as corruption is hidden, you're OK with it.

Trust freezing, tax havens, stock options, shell companies, equity swaps, deferred compensation, don't you claim to know things about finance? And what's the tax rate on capital gains vs income?

I'm not a CPA - don't even play one on TV, but I manage to scrape by with my financial endeavors. Thankfully, you don't claim to know about finance, and it's good that you don't. You don't seem to even know the difference between asset appreciation and income. In a trust freeze, the income (whether annuitized or simple dividends) that's distributed to the grantor is still taxed. Typically they're used by family businesses (including farms) to avoid having to liquidate these holdings upon death in order to pay immediate estate taxes. What's passed on to heirs is neither earnings nor income, but certain taxes are still applied if income is generated and distributed. Tax havens: the U.S. applies and collects taxes based on worldwide income. If you’re living and working outside the United States, and qualify for the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion, you can exclude the first $102K or so. If you're a successful tax cheat, sure, you can take your chances. Just remember that the fines are heavy and Club Fed isn't where most would want to "vacation". When things like options are exercised, or deferred compensation is realized, when income is passed through a Sub-S corp or LLC, or there is a realized gain, yes, the net income or gain is then taxed.

What kind of capital gains? Short term is taxed at your income tax rate. Long term tax rates are 0 percent, 15 percent and 20 percent, depending on your income. Certain asset classes are taxed at higher rates: depreciated real estate, precious metal investments, art, etc. Homeowners in the U.S. can exclude $250K ($500K for married couples) of capital gains from the sale of a primary residence. That largely benefits middle class people, especially older ones.

The issues that pop up most often with our tax system, at the individual level, usually have more to do with the "fairness" of income tax minimization strategies, not so much pure income tax avoidance. If one becomes an accredited investor, a new world of tax favored investments and instruments opens up. But anyway, yeah, I have an issue with things like the carried interest provision myself - although even that doesn't allow total tax avoidance.

Guess this part flew by you: in a developed nation, it shouldn't be possible for an employer to pay a full time worker such a low rate that they remain below poverty, regardless of the job or the employee. Government regulation can easily solve that one.

Flew by me like a penguin. More "easy" government regulations = just another thick catch-all for complex issues. Easy, huh? Riiiight. What Cupertino, CA based Apple can/should pay vs. what Greenville, MS based Bob's Computer Fix-it shop can/should pay are very different. But hey, if ol' Bob has to go out of business... so be it. We'll just get him a UBI check. Again, big blanket, feel-good jibber-jabber, while avoiding details at the ground level. You people and your "easy" solutions.

Didn't realize any of those people were part of this conversation.

Hey, you're the one who said, "nobody's talking about UBI." I just corrected you. It's bad enough when what I say flies over your head. Now your own claims are flying by you. Plenty of people in your camp are talking about UBI. So why do you want to deny their existence and hide from the UBI concept that your masters support? It's just a basic income for all, and includes those unable or unwilling to work. Don't you like that? Come on now. It's open kimono time.

Yet you repeatedly claim that anyone who doesn't outright reject both parties must be a mindless sheep in a party line prison. Hmmm, me thinks some hypocrisy for lunch might be tasty.

It's not so much about rejecting both parties, it's more about not having a blind devotion to either. And yes, they're sheeple. Always have been. Always will be. Why do people like you feel that your party of choice needs to know ahead of time that you'll carry their water no matter what? I think that's kind of sad. I may vote for this party's candidate (locally or nationally). I may vote for that party's candidate (locally or nationally). I may vote for a third party candidate at times. But unlike you, I'm not a smile & wave, yowza boss type person. Never have been. Never will be.

Well, that's nice - eat hearty and enjoy. It's peachy for you to announce what you're having for your mid-day meal.

Do I really need to provide you with a list of all the things the democrats have done or tried to do to protect the working class, provide things like health care and education, increase government transparency and accountability? I never said the dems were perfect, or all that great. But they're objectively a hell of a lot better for the average American than republicans are. It's called the lesser of two evils.

You don't have to justify your loyalty to any party to me. It's expected and is what it is. Apparently all you can understand in your bifurcated world is a two party (or maybe in your case, a one party) system. Dedication to the lesser of two evils is still dedication to an evil (by your own admission).

But sure, you just sit up on that pedestal you've put yourself on and bleeting about how we need to scrap the whole system and start again, if you just want to keep trying what hasn't worked so far.

Kneel! From my pedestal, I dub thee "Sir Misses the Point". You really are confused if you think that I support scrapping the whole system and starting again. That's the complete opposite of what I believe. I'd like to see workable and practical reforms, and I'd like to see people less tied to one party or the other. Independents often lean one way or the other (though not always the same way in each election cycle or contest), but their lack of devotion or loyalty to either party is what I'd like to see in more voters. A viable third party, or even a coalition of parties, would be a welcome sight to me.

But it was you who was on here a few months ago floating the (truly) insane idea of a civil war being necessary to effect change in the U.S. That suggests a person incapable of practical compromise or developing workable solutions within a system (that's not as broken as a seemingly irrational person wants to believe)... one who can't accept reforms, but suggests burning down the house (going to war?!) instead. Hey, you said it... so gotta own it.

 

[mongo18]

It's called minimum wage. Most countries have it, even yours. And it's a floor, not a ceiling. It can't guarantee that someone in CA makes the same as someone in MS, but it can guarantee that neither one of them lives in poverty while working full time.

I said - the working class pay taxes, and those taxes pay for public universities and hospitals that they then can't afford to access, which is unfair.
You said - No they don't, not even close.

What did you mean? That the working class don't pay taxes? That the taxes that the working class do pay do not contribute to funding hospitals and universities? What the fuck was your point?

I've said it multiple times, and I'll say it one more, even though you're far too busy tearing down your own straw men to pay attention - I'm not loyal to the democratic party, and they're not my masters. I think on the whole they're interested in improving life for the average American, and in the 18 months or so of Obama's presidency that they were able to pass laws they implemented a lot of beneficial legislation.
I do, and I'll freely admit it, hate the republican party and pretty much anyone who defends them. They have done nothing to benefit the majority of Americans in the last decade, they lie, cheat, and steal their way to power, while accusing the other side of doing what they actually do. Today's republican party is the biggest threat the USA has ever faced, because they've already taken control. And their success in subverting US democracy has emboldened reality ignoring, history rewriting, extreme right governments all over the world.

You were the first one to bring up UBI, dickhead. Go back and read again. Try to comprehend this time.

it was you who was on here a few months ago floating the (truly) insane idea of a civil war being necessary

Speaking of re-reading, you should go back and have another look at that thread. You've always struck me as a very arrogant person, far too enamored of your own brilliance, but now you're either being exceptionally obtuse or deliberately dishonest in mischaracterizing what I said in that thread.

In short, you're a wanker, with an overly inflated sense of your own superiority, and I'm not interested in continuing this dance with you while you twist the narrative and continue to push irrelevant points that I've already refuted.

 

[Rey C.]

Minimum wage... each state is already perfectly free to set a minimum wage at whatever level it chooses, as long as it's equal to or above the federally mandated level. In your childish desire to be contrary and argumentative, I know that it's oh so difficult for you to comprehend what I'm telling you. But I've expressed many times on this board that I'm not opposed to a federal floor (and that it should be indexed to an inflation measure), only that the floor has to take into account high cost of living states and low cost of living states. I know that it doesn't matter to your kind that small businesses could be driven under if the floor is out of whack for their area. So here's another example why your easy, big blanket, centralized government scheme would have issues. Find and set an appropriate federal level that would work for most states, index it to inflation, and let the high cost of living states make adjustments above that, as necessary. Unlike your whiny jibber-jabber, at least that would be a balanced start.

Hold on, now "Today's republican party is the biggest threat the USA has ever faced"? Uh, er... I thought that (make believe) "unbridled capitalism" was the biggest threat/problem. You're just all over the place with your "there be dragons!" arguments, aren't you?


You said that no one was talking about the UBI - another false claim on your part. I don't know why it's tearing you up that I pointed out that a whole load of people are talking about it - even in Congress. And it's an important plank in any discussion having to do with socialism (democratic socialism or the purer form). You did see the title of this thread, didn't you??? In fact, it's a concept that's being explored by both sides of the political divide in the U.S. So it's really humorous how it totally lights your little fuse to even acknowledge it. If I'd brought up Modern Monetary Theory, I guess you'd have totally lost your mind. Straight Shooter and I discussed that topic some months back. Unlike you, he had a well thought out position and didn't act like a man-baby when questioned about it. Sometimes we agree. Sometimes we don't. But we can have a conversation.


What did I mean? How many times do I have to explain simple facts to you? No one claimed that the bottom 50% doesn't pay taxes. What I showed you was what the contributions were at the federal level by income group. What is this, like the third time I've explained that to you? Being that some states don't have an income tax and some don't have sales taxes, that gave an apples to apples comparison that I figured even you could understand. Clearly, I was wrong. Oh well, that's what I get for overestimating someone's intelligence.

Oh, I understood perfectly well where you were coming from in that thread. Don't play coy now. Frustration at not having things go your way led to considerations of civil unrest. Posing that as a veiled question didn't hide where your head was.

My, my... him really am upset. Calm down, Francis! Man up! Too much time in that safe space is making you tender and soft. Having or supporting a broad concept is fine. But don't fall to pieces and start throwing your toys when challenged to provide details. And don't be afraid to agree with someone's point, even someone you may dislike, when their belief is not that far from your own. Some of the concepts you believe in, I may believe in (to varying degrees) too. But when challenged for details, it becomes apparent that you haven't thought things through. That's just intellectual laziness on your part. Come down from your 1000 ft. view and get in the weeds.

Oh puleeez, don't sing that sad song, trying to get your ounce of victimhood today. There are a lot of very bright people on here. And there are a lot of fun people on here. Some people are both. And... some people are neither. Some are just funny. IMO, you're just kind of funny, but in a sad sort of way. You're not really stupid. You seem to be somewhat intelligent, just lacking an ability to deal with things that don't totally agree with your world view. Your problem (one of them, anyway) is that you fall to pieces too easily when you're challenged or pressed for details, or you hear things that you don't like. Make him mad. Make him sad.

Look dude, whatever you choose to do in this thread is up to you. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. You're just another swinging dick on a porn board to me. Come back with your man pants on and I'll still be here.

Cheers. 🤗🇺🇸

 

[Supafly]

Socialism is a tag put on various ways to rganize specific countries. And just like "Capitalism", it comes in many different forms of, let's say purity

Socialism, as attempted in the former "German Democratic Republic" (Which, ironically, was pretty much anything BUT democratic), is of the most extreme kinds, and, due to the attempt to run a country on theories rather than on working solutions, it HAD to fail and could only survive by hanging on the USSR's big tit.

While its brother country, Federal Republic of Germany, aka Westgermany, evoolved into a system called "soziale Marktwirtschaft" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy) which is described in the Wiki article like this:

"The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism or social capitalism,[1] is a socioeconomic model combining a free market capitalist economic system alongside social policies that establish both fair competition within the market and a welfare state.[2][3] It is sometimes classified as a coordinated market economy.[4] The social market economy was originally promoted and implemented in West Germany by the Christian Democratic Union (CDU) under Chancellor Konrad Adenauer in 1949.[5] Its origins can be traced to the interwar Freiburg school of economic thought

..."

So it lies somewhere in the middle of capitalism and socialism, and it appears to be suited better than the extreme forms on both sides of the scale with crisis.

 

[Rey C.]

Socialism is a tag put on various ways to rganize specific countries. And just like "Capitalism", it comes in many different forms of, let's say purity

Agreed. They're just economic models which can be implemented in various ways and to varying degrees.

So it lies somewhere in the middle of capitalism and socialism, and it appears to be suited better than the extreme forms on both sides of the scale with crisis.

That's right. You get it. And that "optimal mix" (as I might refer to it) might be different in one nation or society than in another. Finding that mix, and working through the details, is the tricky part.

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

I'm moving to Honduras.

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1466182026835410950

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

Latin America's going red, boys!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1472719346313084929

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Latin America's going red, boys!

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1472719346313084929

Well it depends if the revolution is real this time for them and they get a good Socialism/Communism or just another dictatorship pretending to be something else. See North Korea.

 

[Steve-FreeOnes]

Well it depends if the revolution is real this time for them and they get a good Socialism/Communism or just another dictatorship pretending to be something else. See North Korea.

There's nothing really to suggest that Gabriel Boric has any parallels to Kim Jong-il or un though.

 

[gmase]

There's nothing really to suggest that Gabriel Boric has any parallels to Kim Jong-il or un though.

Nah, but it is still fun to draw the comparison.

The WSJ wrote a great article earlier this month about Venezuela’s embrace of Cuba - which has not turned out too well for them. Boric may be better than the other guy, but hopefully he doesn’t wreck the country like Chavez and Castro.

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

There's nothing really to suggest that Gabriel Boric has any parallels to Kim Jong-il or un though.

Probably not but Did Lenin tell the Russians that, by the way in a few years it will be just like the Czar only worse? Did Chairman Mao mention in 1950 that in 15 years the Great Leap Forward would make the disasters of the past seem like a bad dream. The idea of Socialism is not bad and many elements are already in use in a good portion of the world successfully. And no major country of the world, and probably no minor one as well, has implemented Communism in it's true form. After all the idea of the main principle, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, is great. The question is, who decided what you need. And as is being proven here in the USA even a democratic republic can be twitchy during changes. In a government controlled society the potential for draconian changes, even if not intended is high. So far Capitalism has been mostly able to do the job. That said, the lack of reasonable controls (think some Socialism here) is hurting more than it is helping. Except the Wealthy.

 

[Straight Shooter]

Probably not but Did Lenin tell the Russians that, by the way in a few years it will be just like the Czar only worse? Did Chairman Mao mention in 1950 that in 15 years the Great Leap Forward would make the disasters of the past seem like a bad dream. The idea of Socialism is not bad and many elements are already in use in a good portion of the world successfully. And no major country of the world, and probably no minor one as well, has implemented Communism in it's true form. After all the idea of the main principle, From each according to his ability, to each according to his need, is great. The question is, who decided what you need. And as is being proven here in the USA even a democratic republic can be twitchy during changes. In a government controlled society the potential for draconian changes, even if not intended is high. So far Capitalism has been mostly able to do the job. That said, the lack of reasonable controls (think some Socialism here) is hurting more than it is helping. Except the Wealthy.

Oh fuck off

 

[Theopolis Q. Hossenffer]

Oh fuck off

No, I will not. Good argument though. Well written. Carefully executed.