The Great Socialism Gap: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other..

[Mac1958]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, happier, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

And every single one of those countries had to scale back government programs and worked with the private sector because it wasn't affordable.
Our freedom from big government does work under bigger government control.

Bernie Sanders wants full socialism of bigger government control over everyone.
The programs he is proposing will bankrupt us just like Venezuela was.
People are leaving bigger government to come here for freedom from, bigger government controlled programs and people here in the USA are voting for bigger government control.
Crazy.

All of them still have a larger safety net than we do. Significantly so.

So the argument is not "Venezuela" vs. "Freedom", it's where we fall along that continuum. That would be a far more interesting and productive conversation.
.

 

[jc456]

just more people who don't know where money comes from and what it's for. Sad. the demofks have destroyed america. It's on their fking shoulders. I'm happy to discuss with any reasonable demofk.

 

[Flash]

You are confused Moon Bat.

If you want to discuss this without the juvenile name calling that would be great.

I can not say it is name calling because everyone should know this about political/economic systems going in. What the founders tried to imprint on people even with a flaw in its own constitution is that freedom was the reason for it. At the time there was no capitalism or socialism or communism. At least officially. At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights. The rights of the whole. And they most likely will not come back and will be expanded on.

Where did the founders ever dream of a system where an entity can create "wealth" out of nothing to inject into the markets?

You are confused.

Let me explain it to you.

Bill Gates (almost literally) created a business out of his garage. That business did not exist. The government didn't make it happen. He did. He did it wothout government subsidies or anything.

Nowadays his capitalism has created billions of wealth and jobs for tens of thousands of people in addition to needed goods and services. Also, tons of tax revenue and charity contributions.

That is capitalism. It creates wealth. We all benefit from it. For instance, I am educating you on a software system that was created under capitalism by one of the richest man in the world.

Socialism is the destruction of wealth. Like when that asshole Obama raised taxes and then used the money to provide benefits for Illegal aliens.

It will be more destructive if that clown Commie Bernie takes the money that I make and uses it to pay health care for shitheads too sorry to provide for their own health care. Or to pay for the college education for some idiot college student majoring in something worthless.

We had to "bail out" the capitalists. If not for Socialist back up systems we would have actions like France did in the late 18th century. The Federal Reserve is pumping billions weekly to make sure people can afford their kids education but when one argues that it shouldn't be only a few being able to take advantage of that, you get all upset.

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport. I am against all welfare including bailouts. Like when that shithead Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler. Remember that? Despicable, wasn't it? Payoff to the filthy UAW that gave Obama millions of campaign dollars, wasn't it? I am against subsidies to Environment Wacko companies like Solyndra. All welfare, subsidies, bailouts, grants and entitlements. You will join me, won't you since you think companies need bailouts.

Capitalism can survive without government subsidies or bailouts. Socialism cannot even exist without government thievery.

 

[MisterBeale]

You are ignorant.

What federally owned government industries do Americans accept now?

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

 

[pknopp]

If you want to discuss this without the juvenile name calling that would be great.

I can not say it is name calling because everyone should know this about political/economic systems going in. What the founders tried to imprint on people even with a flaw in its own constitution is that freedom was the reason for it. At the time there was no capitalism or socialism or communism. At least officially. At the same time we have uplifted socialist policies, we have taken away unalienable rights. The rights of the whole. And they most likely will not come back and will be expanded on.

Where did the founders ever dream of a system where an entity can create "wealth" out of nothing to inject into the markets?

You are confused.

Let me explain it to you.

Bill Gates (almost literally) created a business out of his garage. That business did not exist. The government didn't make it happen. He did. He did it wothout government subsidies or anything.

Nowadays his capitalism has created billions of wealth and jobs for tens of thousands of people in addition to needed goods and services. Also, tons of tax revenue and charity contributions.

That is capitalism. It creates wealth. We all benefit from it. For instance, I am educating you on a software system that was created under capitalism by one of the richest man in the world.

Socialism is the destruction of wealth. Like when that asshole Obama raised taxes and then used the money to provide benefits for Illegal aliens.

It will be more destructive if that clown Commie Bernie takes the money that I make and uses it to pay health care for shitheads too sorry to provide for their own health care. Or to pay for the college education for some idiot college student majoring in something worthless.

We had to "bail out" the capitalists. If not for Socialist back up systems we would have actions like France did in the late 18th century. The Federal Reserve is pumping billions weekly to make sure people can afford their kids education but when one argues that it shouldn't be only a few being able to take advantage of that, you get all upset.

You are barking up the wrong tree there Sport. I am against all welfare including bailouts. Like when that shithead Obama bailed out GM and Chrysler. Remember that? Despicable, wasn't it? Payoff to the filthy UAW that gave Obama millions of campaign dollars, wasn't it? I am against subsidies to Environment Wacko companies like Solyndra. All welfare, subsidies, bailouts, grants and entitlements. You will join me, won't you since you think companies need bailouts.

Capitalism can survive without government subsidies or bailouts. Socialism cannot even exist without government thievery.

Earlier today I condemned the bail out of the auto industry. When we stop the constant bail out of the markets by the Federal Reserve I'll take your position seriously. Since that is not going to happen I am going to fight for a more fair use of those billions.

 

[peach174]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, happier, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

And every single one of those countries had to scale back government programs and worked with the private sector because it wasn't affordable.
Our freedom from big government does work under bigger government control.

Bernie Sanders wants full socialism of bigger government control over everyone.
The programs he is proposing will bankrupt us just like Venezuela was.
People are leaving bigger government to come here for freedom from, bigger government controlled programs and people here in the USA are voting for bigger government control.
Crazy.

All of them still have a larger safety net than we do. Significantly so.

So the argument is not "Venezuela" vs. "Freedom", it's where we fall along that continuum. That would be a far more interesting and productive conversation.
.

Balance in the middle like Trump is trying to do.

 

[jc456]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism. I hate each of the three. Unrealistic and would fail if not for the bravery of 50% of the country. Some who are locked in because they are now invested and others because they believe in taking care of the poor.

Each of the three will deplete all funding over the course of their existence if corrections weren't made to adjust the amount of money government takes from working people. Every working person. need money, Tax, need more money, find something else to tax, and when you've taxed everything, then go back and raise the amount of the tax on each and everything being taxed. spiral, and it's what happened in Venezuela. And every other mthr fking socialist country that has ever gone there. Stupid people are just fking stupid.

One can't reason with a stupid fk.

 

[pknopp]

You can avoid the point if you wish. We have covered this over and over already. Do you disagree that people are against the socialism I pointed out?

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

No it isn't.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

 

[MisterBeale]

Why does so many Americans want to go down the same ruined path as Venezuela did?

They don't. They're looking at other, happier, far more successful countries, like Canada, Australia, Germany and Norway.

What I don't understand is why so many STILL can't comprehend this, no matter HOW many times it's pointed out.
.

And every single one of those countries had to scale back government programs and worked with the private sector because it wasn't affordable.
Our freedom from big government does work under bigger government control.

Bernie Sanders wants full socialism of bigger government control over everyone.
The programs he is proposing will bankrupt us just like Venezuela was.
People are leaving bigger government to come here for freedom from, bigger government controlled programs and people here in the USA are voting for bigger government control.
Crazy.

All of them still have a larger safety net than we do. Significantly so.

So the argument is not "Venezuela" vs. "Freedom", it's where we fall along that continuum. That would be a far more interesting and productive conversation.
.

Let the states worry about the safety nets, THAT IS THEIR JOB.

. . . and each state and her people can decide for themselves. Let New Yorkers be New Yorkers, Let Texans be Texans, and Let Californians be Californians. Let the system work and everyone fall along that continuum as they were intended.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.[5]"

 

[pknopp]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism.

You all need to get together and decide if it is or not.

 

[jc456]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism.

You all need to get together and decide if it is or not.

why, I'm me. I'm not anyone else. you wish to have a conversation, I'm here. pull up your big boy pants and say what you want!

Scoialism or Ponzi schemes. flip a coin.

Give me a dollar and I'll give it to another. But the another, doesn't participate so the balance isn't there. Socialism.

As the guy with three houses and millions of dollars for doing nothing complains about the middle class making money. too fking funny.

 

[peach174]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism. I hate each of the three. Unrealistic and would fail if not for the bravery of 50% of the country. Some who are locked in because they are now invested and others because they believe in taking care of the poor.

Each of the three will deplete all funding over the course of their existence if corrections weren't made to adjust the amount of money government takes from working people. Every working person. need money, Tax, need more money, find something else to tax, and when you've taxed everything, then go back and raise the amount of the tax on each and everything being taxed. spiral, and it's what happened in Venezuela. And every other mthr fking socialist country that has ever gone there. Stupid people are just fking stupid.

One can't reason with a stupid fk.

Medicare and Social Security are paid by the workers and is for them to receive later, welfare is not.
Welfare is socialism.

 

[pknopp]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism.

You all need to get together and decide if it is or not.

why, I'm me. I'm not anyone else. you wish to have a conversation, I'm here. pull up your big boy pants and say what you want!

One person argues its socialism. So I argue that and then I'm told I am wrong for arguing that because it's not socialism.

I have no problem arguing socialism as it is generally argued. Is that the textbook definition? No.

 

[pknopp]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism. I hate each of the three. Unrealistic and would fail if not for the bravery of 50% of the country. Some who are locked in because they are now invested and others because they believe in taking care of the poor.

Each of the three will deplete all funding over the course of their existence if corrections weren't made to adjust the amount of money government takes from working people. Every working person. need money, Tax, need more money, find something else to tax, and when you've taxed everything, then go back and raise the amount of the tax on each and everything being taxed. spiral, and it's what happened in Venezuela. And every other mthr fking socialist country that has ever gone there. Stupid people are just fking stupid.

One can't reason with a stupid fk.

Medicare and Social Security are paid by the workers and is for them to receive later, welfare is not.
Welfare is socialism.

Welfare takes on many forms.

 

[peach174]

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

No it isn't.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

And the quality is shitty.
It's not worth the trade for top quality health care.
Get government out of it.
Competition brings the cost down.

 

[MisterBeale]

Golfing Gator already addressed my point.

You are defining any government action in the interest of the masses as "socialism." As someone who actually did study in political science at Uni, I know words and theory have meaning, and that is just rhetoric, it is an attempt to confuse and obfuscate the issue.

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Find a definition for me so broad that it encapsulates even the Federal Reserve which has private share holders as "socialism." Under that scheme, profits are privatized, losses are put on the public. So it is only quasi-socialist.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

At most, the US system uses dirgism. Even for all of the governments need for procurement, from SNAP to HUD. That is far closer to fascism, or STATE CAPITALISM. IOW, you don't have the first clue what you are writing about. Stake holders and interest groups in the U.S. have contracts and free enterprise to get government cash to provide goods and services to the people of the nation. There is no "socialism" in the U.S.

The lords of capital have used their complete capture of the corporate propaganda to do a job on your head. I suggest you go back to school and read a book. They will NEVER, EVER let real socialism take root in this nation. Nor can you name for me a single real example of an industry. . .

. . . . except maybe what, going back to FDR's TVA?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

No it isn't.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

O.K.

It is at this point, I think we are done having a productive conversation.

It has become clear to me one of two things. Either A) you are not a U.S. citizen, or B) you were not educated here or failed to understand and take to that education. Because anyone that has gotten involved in local politics understands and KNOWS that educations is the job of State and local governments. The Federal Government can only influence it through something called block grants that it attaches strings to that the states must adhere to if they want the money.

The only other reason for the Federal Dept. of Ed. is student loans.

You really don't now a whole lot about this, do you?
https://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html


Now you are responding just like any person from the Common Wealth or other nations trying to subvert our society would. Folks deserve free stuff? Why?


"People should not have to choose between being healthy and having. . . (free stuff)"


Why? Eat right, exercise, save, invest, and buy the right health plan.

 

[jc456]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism. I hate each of the three. Unrealistic and would fail if not for the bravery of 50% of the country. Some who are locked in because they are now invested and others because they believe in taking care of the poor.

Each of the three will deplete all funding over the course of their existence if corrections weren't made to adjust the amount of money government takes from working people. Every working person. need money, Tax, need more money, find something else to tax, and when you've taxed everything, then go back and raise the amount of the tax on each and everything being taxed. spiral, and it's what happened in Venezuela. And every other mthr fking socialist country that has ever gone there. Stupid people are just fking stupid.

One can't reason with a stupid fk.

Medicare and Social Security are paid by the workers and is for them to receive later, welfare is not.
Welfare is socialism.

Medicare and SS are ponzi schemes and doomed to fail just like socialism. sorry. let me keep my money and invest it, I don't want to give it to the government that squeezes the participants.

 

[jc456]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism. I hate each of the three. Unrealistic and would fail if not for the bravery of 50% of the country. Some who are locked in because they are now invested and others because they believe in taking care of the poor.

Each of the three will deplete all funding over the course of their existence if corrections weren't made to adjust the amount of money government takes from working people. Every working person. need money, Tax, need more money, find something else to tax, and when you've taxed everything, then go back and raise the amount of the tax on each and everything being taxed. spiral, and it's what happened in Venezuela. And every other mthr fking socialist country that has ever gone there. Stupid people are just fking stupid.

One can't reason with a stupid fk.

Medicare and Social Security are paid by the workers and is for them to receive later, welfare is not.
Welfare is socialism.

Welfare takes on many forms.

someone keeping what they make isn't welfare, no matter how many times any of you bernie fks wish to make it so.

 

[jc456]

"Socialism" doesn't freak out anyone once you get them to be honest concerning all the socialism they accept now. Ask people on Medicare if they are willing to get rid of it. Ask anyone with a 401k if they are willing to end the massive pumping by the Federal Reserve. Ask Trump supporters to condemn his bail outs.

"Well, that's not Socialism". Yes it is and it's most certainly the kind of "socialism" others condemn.

medicare, social security and welfare are socialism.

You all need to get together and decide if it is or not.

why, I'm me. I'm not anyone else. you wish to have a conversation, I'm here. pull up your big boy pants and say what you want!

One person argues its socialism. So I argue that and then I'm told I am wrong for arguing that because it's not socialism.

I have no problem arguing socialism as it is generally argued. Is that the textbook definition? No.

it's semantics. It isn't what bernie and the green deal is though. that is what is Venezuela. Not sure why anyone even challenges that. that's a fking fact. It's simple, have bernie forfeit all his money to the welfare queens and let's see how that works out. Sell all his homes and hand the money out. take from him first, let's see how he likes it. Especially his family. They use to call it leading by example.

 

[pknopp]

No, I am using the arguments others use to condemn things like making sure everyone can afford to see a doctor when they need to.

Is that really what you want to argue? It's not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Is that really the soap box you want to stand on?

Doctors will still own their own practices so UHC is not socialist, it's only quasi-socialist. Better?

Great, so since there is no socialism in the U.S. those who argue against socialism in the US are full of crap. I'm good with going with that.

". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

So I tell you what the problems are. . . the endemic problems? And your solution is. . More of the same?

Oh look, your house is on fire, maybe you should put it out?


". . . I'm good with going with that.. .. ."

What I see here is you speaking out of both sides of your mouth. You argue we do not have socialism.

We have Medicare. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM"

We have publicly funded education. Sanders wants to expand on that. You yell "SOCIALISM".

Localities fund education, not the Feds. It is against the Constitution to do that.

No it isn't.

I have no problem helping the young, old and disabled to medical care. .. If you get Medicaid, you don't get to have toys or vacations. There is no disposable income. The government knows this.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

My problem is with those folks who have this belief that they should have government cover their medical care so they can spend their money on investments, real estate, vacations, shopping, toys, etc.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

Healthcare IS NOT a human right, it is an investment in your future and it is a commodity. Primarily, it is an after thought of those who do not prioritize eating and drinking well and taking care of their health.

If the government takes it over? IT will become EVEN MORE expensive and filled with corruption and bloat.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

And the quality is shitty.
It's not worth the trade for top quality health care.
Get government out of it.
Competition brings the cost down.

The Soaring Price of EpiPen | RN.com