Conservatives may want to read this piece about socialism

[BrokeLoser]

Bipartisanship has no value in these times. Folks standing in the middle are actually standing on the sideline.
Many people have a habit of trivializing everything by “digging deep”....dig too deep and talk yourself right out of any firm convictions...at the end of the day you’ll stand for nothing. That’s actually the “simple” thing to do.

I'm not talking about bipartisanship. I'm talking about the fundamental ability to recognize clear differences.

What I can't quite tell is whether you folks really can't recognize the difference between Cuba and Canada, or if you're just playing partisan games.

Still working on that.
.

Oh but you are talking about bipartisanship, you always are. You simply use different wordplay.
The difference between Canada and Cuba are the people...one nation full of moral, decent, high iQ types with an inherent desire to do and be better the other 180 degrees the opposite....the populous being immoral, indecent, low iQ with an inherent desire to feed from the bottom.
You hate this...but “deep down” you know this is true.

I'm not talking about the people. I'm talking about the system.

One last try: From an overall perspective, do you see any difference the socialism in Canada and the socialism in Cuba?.
.

You must have missed the point....different types of systems work with different types of people. Socialism can’t work in the U.S...we fucked ourselves with that diversity bullshit we were sold....we now have way too many shameless bottom feeders who take great pride in their complacent filth.

Okay, then would you agree that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that there are degrees of what we could call "socialism" that exist in individual countries?
.

Sure...but what does that mean to you?
We have lots of “socialism” in the U.S. now...no?

 

[Vel]

It's unfortunate that so many young people feel "poor" while walking around in $150.00 shoes and carrying a $600.00 phone.

 

[Mac1958]

I'm not talking about bipartisanship. I'm talking about the fundamental ability to recognize clear differences.

What I can't quite tell is whether you folks really can't recognize the difference between Cuba and Canada, or if you're just playing partisan games.

Still working on that.
.

Oh but you are talking about bipartisanship, you always are. You simply use different wordplay.
The difference between Canada and Cuba are the people...one nation full of moral, decent, high iQ types with an inherent desire to do and be better the other 180 degrees the opposite....the populous being immoral, indecent, low iQ with an inherent desire to feed from the bottom.
You hate this...but “deep down” you know this is true.

I'm not talking about the people. I'm talking about the system.

One last try: From an overall perspective, do you see any difference the socialism in Canada and the socialism in Cuba?.
.

You must have missed the point....different types of systems work with different types of people. Socialism can’t work in the U.S...we fucked ourselves with that diversity bullshit we were sold....we now have way too many shameless bottom feeders who take great pride in their complacent filth.

Okay, then would you agree that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that there are degrees of what we could call "socialism" that exist in individual countries?
.

Sure...but what does that mean to you?
We have lots of “socialism” in the U.S. now...no?

First, thanks for agreeing that this stuff exists on a continuum.

My point is that there is socialism (such as Cuba and Venezuela) and what's called democratic socialism (such as Canada, Australia, Germany, Britain and Sweden), and that they're simply not the same thing. So it gets frustrating when the term "socialism" is used, because it's so often used interchangeably. Too vague.

That's all.
.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Oh but you are talking about bipartisanship, you always are. You simply use different wordplay.
The difference between Canada and Cuba are the people...one nation full of moral, decent, high iQ types with an inherent desire to do and be better the other 180 degrees the opposite....the populous being immoral, indecent, low iQ with an inherent desire to feed from the bottom.
You hate this...but “deep down” you know this is true.

I'm not talking about the people. I'm talking about the system.

One last try: From an overall perspective, do you see any difference the socialism in Canada and the socialism in Cuba?.
.

You must have missed the point....different types of systems work with different types of people. Socialism can’t work in the U.S...we fucked ourselves with that diversity bullshit we were sold....we now have way too many shameless bottom feeders who take great pride in their complacent filth.

Okay, then would you agree that economic systems exist on a continuum, and that there are degrees of what we could call "socialism" that exist in individual countries?
.

Sure...but what does that mean to you?
We have lots of “socialism” in the U.S. now...no?

First, thanks for agreeing that this stuff exists on a continuum.

My point is that there is socialism (such as Cuba and Venezuela) and what's called democratic socialism (such as Canada, Australia, Germany, Britain and Sweden), and that they're simply not the same thing. So it gets frustrating when the term "socialism" is used, because it's so often used interchangeably. Too vague.

That's all.
.

I saw what you were getting at from a mile away...but my point remains the same. Socialism as we know it without spin has no place in America with the grade of human being now residing here.
Too many takers and no benefit for the few givers...nothing reciprocal about it.

 

[CarlinAnnArbor]

I'm hoping we can stay on point here and not degenerate into yet another shallow, platitude-filled discussion on the evils of socialism.

Full disclosure up front: Writer Michael Tomasky is a hardcore left wing partisan ideologue. But in this piece, he actually offers some serious, reasonable, salient advice about the rise in popularity of socialism in this country:

Opinion | What Are Capitalists Thinking?

Examples:

You want fewer socialists? Easy. Stop creating them. Ask yourself: If you’re 28 like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congressional candidate who describes herself as a democratic socialist, what have you seen during your sentient life?

You witnessed the financial meltdown of 2008, caused by big banks betting against themselves. Capitalists might want to consider how all that looked to a young person who came from a working-class family and who probably knows someone who lost a job or even his house, while some of the bankers who helped create the mess walked away with golden parachutes, like that of Countrywide Financial’s Angelo Mozilo, which The Times valued at $88 million.

So, back now to our 28-year-old. She was born in 1990. She will probably remember, in the late ’90s, her parents feeling pretty good about things — median household income did go up under Bill Clinton more than they had under any president in a long time, even more than under Ronald Reagan. But ever since, the median income picture has been much spottier, hardly increasing at all in inflation-adjusted dollars over 18 long years. And those incomes at the top have shot to the heavens.

So if you were a person of modest or even middle-class means, how would you feel about capitalism? The kind of capitalism this country has been practicing for all these years has failed most people.

Thoughts? Or is this just more "fake news"?
.

If you keep advocating for socialism, and you do, you're NOT middle of the road. I knew you weren't, but thanks for showing us again.

 

[Mac1958]

If you keep advocating for socialism, and you do, you're NOT middle of the road. I knew you weren't, but thanks for showing us again.

Nowhere have I advocated for socialism.

The "middle of the road" lie is specifically addressed in the second line of my sig.

Zero for two. Want to go for three or four?
.

 

[Muhammed]

what are banks supposed to do when they're more or less forced to give out bad loans they'd never do otherwise?

Well, they don't:

• Drop standards significantly below what is required of them
• Relax standards to the point at which DOGS were buying homes
• Knowingly put people in balloon mortgages they knew those people would lose
• Lobby Greenspan, Bush and the government to refuse to regulate the shit securities
  
• Package shit loans into opaque MBS "securities" and sell them off within 12 hours, eliminating their risk
• Threaten to pull business from ratings agencies if these shit securities are not given AAA ratings
• Make the shit securities even shittier by adding fat fees that were absorbed into operating costs
  
• Sell and buy hundreds of billions of dollars of CDSs that had zero (0) dollars in reserve
• Create shit CDOs, which are three times as shitty as MBSs, and misrepresent them
• Bet against the very same shit securities they're selling to "clients"
• Actually create shit securities DESIGNED to fail and buy swaps on them

The Meltdown was about the above, not about legislation.
.

Exactly!

And is called DEREGULATION, which occured under the Bush II Administration, and Republicans are chomping at the bits for more of the same, up to this very day.

Could you give a few examples of this Bush deregulation and explain exactly how you believe they led to the financial crisis?

 

[iceberg]

It's unfortunate that so many young people feel "poor" while walking around in $150.00 shoes and carrying a $600.00 phone.

they had to get last months phone????

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It's unfortunate that so many young people feel "poor" while walking around in $150.00 shoes and carrying a $600.00 phone.

they had to get last months phone????

That'll make you feel poor every time!

 

[Muhammed]

I'm hoping we can stay on point here and not degenerate into yet another shallow, platitude-filled discussion on the evils of socialism.

Full disclosure up front: Writer Michael Tomasky is a hardcore left wing partisan ideologue. But in this piece, he actually offers some serious, reasonable, salient advice about the rise in popularity of socialism in this country:

Opinion | What Are Capitalists Thinking?

Examples:

You want fewer socialists? Easy. Stop creating them. Ask yourself: If you’re 28 like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, the New York congressional candidate who describes herself as a democratic socialist, what have you seen during your sentient life?

You witnessed the financial meltdown of 2008, caused by big banks betting against themselves. Capitalists might want to consider how all that looked to a young person who came from a working-class family and who probably knows someone who lost a job or even his house, while some of the bankers who helped create the mess walked away with golden parachutes, like that of Countrywide Financial’s Angelo Mozilo, which The Times valued at $88 million.

So, back now to our 28-year-old. She was born in 1990. She will probably remember, in the late ’90s, her parents feeling pretty good about things — median household income did go up under Bill Clinton more than they had under any president in a long time, even more than under Ronald Reagan. But ever since, the median income picture has been much spottier, hardly increasing at all in inflation-adjusted dollars over 18 long years. And those incomes at the top have shot to the heavens.

So if you were a person of modest or even middle-class means, how would you feel about capitalism? The kind of capitalism this country has been practicing for all these years has failed most people.

Thoughts? Or is this just more "fake news"?
.

Even through those economic conditions, people in the USA were still a lot better off than people in socialist countries.