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

[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.

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.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

 

[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.

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.

It's not about you. We live in a society.

 

[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.

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

You can address what I said or not.

 

[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.

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.

We are Venezuela without the socialist policies of the Federal Reserve.

 

[jc456]

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.

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.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

 

[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.

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.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

 

[The Purge]

Socialism is not scary because American capitalism has become little more than an unstable debt trap for the working class. Simple as that.

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

This filthy ass idea of taking money away from the people that earned it to give to the shitheads that didn't earn it destroys the wealth that was created under capitalism. Since Socialism doesn't create jackshit it only works as long as the Socialist bosses can steal the money that was made under Capitalism.

I have an idea Moon Bat. You pay your bills and I will pay mine and we will leave the government out of stealing money to pay other people's bills. Sounds good and fair, doesn't it?

These welfare programs that we already have have hurt this country. Like the trillions we have spent and have not changed the poverty level, curtailed economic growth, have destroyed the families in the minority community and resulted in poverty being exported to the US,. More socialism is the wrong thing and will turn this country into a shithole like other countries.

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies

Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

 

[BlindBoo]

What the Banana Republicans are counting on is the conflation of different ideas. Socialism and the Social Democracy that has developed from our Constitutional Republic combined with Capitalism.

"While it might not sound as dramatic, what Sanders is isn’t a socialist—democratic or otherwise—it’s a social democrat. Social democracy is a reformist approach that doesn’t do away with capitalism in its entirety (as, instead, socialism eventually suggests) but instead regulates it, providing public services and substantial welfare within the frame of an essentially market-led economy. Other leftist politicians such as Elizabeth Warren and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez also fall into this camp.

Why Sanders brands himself a democratic socialist remains unclear. It might be, as some have noted, because of a desire to shock. Or it may be a practical choice: Knowing his American audience is likely to equate socialism with a Stalinist, authoritarian regime, he is highlighting the intrinsically democratic aspect of his positions.

Democratic socialism does not pursue a model like Finland, for instance, which has not done away with capitalist ways of production or a private market.

The key difference between democratic socialism and social democracy is precisely that the former advocates for social ownership of the means of production, and does not believe in reforms within capitalism (although it does support temporary social democratic actions), but in a revolution of the system.

The platform Sanders is running on is reformist, and what he is proposing is a US that looks much more like Canada, or Europe—which certainly are not socialist nations."

Bernie Sanders isn’t a democratic socialist. He is a social democrat

 

[MisterBeale]

". . . 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.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

 

[jc456]

". . . 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.

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.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

our companies make the pharmaceuticals. our people invest, our people dole out the hours. it's hilarious.

There is no comparison, healthcare between the countries. just isn't. you can shrug your shoulders all you wish, the fact remains, our medical care far exceeds any on the planet. We pay for it. We pay differently, but we pay for it. And no one is ever denied care. anywhere. Start posting the costs of the doctor's care. Why is an aspirin five dollars on a stay at a hospital? let's attack the issues. why is everyone and people like you afraid of the facts? I basically pay for my visits out of my pocket. And I pay for insurance. It's called out of pocket expenses and maximums. let me pay for my doctor bills and I'll get coverage for any long care issues separately. Why are you against that? redifine this thing correctly.

 

[sartre play]

Why pick Venezuela? here was a country that was rolling in oil money, with a leader who made him self dictator & refused to change direction when things started going wrong, so why would Socialism be the problem? Was it not a dictator who refused change that destroyed Venezuela?

 

[pknopp]

Socialism is not scary because American capitalism has become little more than an unstable debt trap for the working class. Simple as that.

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

This filthy ass idea of taking money away from the people that earned it to give to the shitheads that didn't earn it destroys the wealth that was created under capitalism. Since Socialism doesn't create jackshit it only works as long as the Socialist bosses can steal the money that was made under Capitalism.

I have an idea Moon Bat. You pay your bills and I will pay mine and we will leave the government out of stealing money to pay other people's bills. Sounds good and fair, doesn't it?

These welfare programs that we already have have hurt this country. Like the trillions we have spent and have not changed the poverty level, curtailed economic growth, have destroyed the families in the minority community and resulted in poverty being exported to the US,. More socialism is the wrong thing and will turn this country into a shithole like other countries.

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
View attachment 308734
Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

The argument here is NOT that they do not exist. The argument is the numbers argued is inflated. Is this the soap box you want to stand on?

 

[pknopp]

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.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

 

[pknopp]

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.

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.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

our companies make the pharmaceuticals. our people invest, our people dole out the hours. it's hilarious.

There is no comparison, healthcare between the countries. just isn't. you can shrug your shoulders all you wish, the fact remains, our medical care far exceeds any on the planet. We pay for it. We pay differently, but we pay for it. And no one is ever denied care. anywhere. Start posting the costs of the doctor's care. Why is an aspirin five dollars on a stay at a hospital? let's attack the issues. why is everyone and people like you afraid of the facts? I basically pay for my visits out of my pocket. And I pay for insurance. It's called out of pocket expenses and maximums. let me pay for my doctor bills and I'll get coverage for any long care issues separately. Why are you against that? redifine this thing correctly.

Our medical care is great for those who can afford it. That is not good enough. Sanders wants to address why an aspirin is $5. Who else is?

 

[The Purge]

Socialism is not scary because American capitalism has become little more than an unstable debt trap for the working class. Simple as that.

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

This filthy ass idea of taking money away from the people that earned it to give to the shitheads that didn't earn it destroys the wealth that was created under capitalism. Since Socialism doesn't create jackshit it only works as long as the Socialist bosses can steal the money that was made under Capitalism.

I have an idea Moon Bat. You pay your bills and I will pay mine and we will leave the government out of stealing money to pay other people's bills. Sounds good and fair, doesn't it?

These welfare programs that we already have have hurt this country. Like the trillions we have spent and have not changed the poverty level, curtailed economic growth, have destroyed the families in the minority community and resulted in poverty being exported to the US,. More socialism is the wrong thing and will turn this country into a shithole like other countries.

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
View attachment 308734
Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

The argument here is NOT that they do not exist. The argument is the numbers argued is inflated. Is this the soap box you want to stand on?

Any proof, or at least a leftist link for you to stand on?

 

[MisterBeale]

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.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

 

[pknopp]

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

You are confused Moon Bat.

This filthy ass idea of taking money away from the people that earned it to give to the shitheads that didn't earn it destroys the wealth that was created under capitalism. Since Socialism doesn't create jackshit it only works as long as the Socialist bosses can steal the money that was made under Capitalism.

I have an idea Moon Bat. You pay your bills and I will pay mine and we will leave the government out of stealing money to pay other people's bills. Sounds good and fair, doesn't it?

These welfare programs that we already have have hurt this country. Like the trillions we have spent and have not changed the poverty level, curtailed economic growth, have destroyed the families in the minority community and resulted in poverty being exported to the US,. More socialism is the wrong thing and will turn this country into a shithole like other countries.

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
View attachment 308734
Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

The argument here is NOT that they do not exist. The argument is the numbers argued is inflated. Is this the soap box you want to stand on?

Any proof, or at least a leftist link for you to stand on?

Proof of what? That I read the article and remarked on what it said? What I said it what the article argued.

 

[The Purge]

You are confused Moon Bat.

This filthy ass idea of taking money away from the people that earned it to give to the shitheads that didn't earn it destroys the wealth that was created under capitalism. Since Socialism doesn't create jackshit it only works as long as the Socialist bosses can steal the money that was made under Capitalism.

I have an idea Moon Bat. You pay your bills and I will pay mine and we will leave the government out of stealing money to pay other people's bills. Sounds good and fair, doesn't it?

These welfare programs that we already have have hurt this country. Like the trillions we have spent and have not changed the poverty level, curtailed economic growth, have destroyed the families in the minority community and resulted in poverty being exported to the US,. More socialism is the wrong thing and will turn this country into a shithole like other countries.

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
View attachment 308734
Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

The argument here is NOT that they do not exist. The argument is the numbers argued is inflated. Is this the soap box you want to stand on?

Any proof, or at least a leftist link for you to stand on?

Proof of what? That I read the article and remarked on what it said? What I said it what the article argued.

It was?...Then why are you arguing?

 

[pknopp]

No it isn't.

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

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.

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.

Education has largely been dealt with on the local level. You said it was unconstitutional to do otherwise. I said you were wrong. As opposed to showing where I am wrong and defending your position you made your post about me.

You're right.

I did make the conversation about you at the point you started making false claims about the U.S. and drawing false comparisons to other nations on a US message board.

I come here to talk about politics in the United State. You started comparing, fallaciously I might add, the U.S. to other western nations. It very much seems to me, you are much more acquainted with other systems than with ours. I am just stating a pretty obvious fact. Don't bullshit a U.S. trained political scientist.

I don't have time for your crap propaganda. Maybe others do.

Shit, you don't even have a clue what Socialism is. You want it to mean, "anything a government does to help people."

Fucked up conversation with a foreign agent provocateur.

The fact that every other first world country provides UHC at a cheaper rate than we do is simple facts. It's not propaganda. It's simple facts.

Which first world nation is as large as ours is?

Which one has as large of a military?

Which one has as diverse a population?

Which one has the same size population?

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.


Honestly. . . you have terrible propaganda. Only folks that have no ability for critical thinking or use emotions to control their decision making would fall for this line of crap. Find some new talking points, seriously.

I have no desire to continue being the most violent nation in the world. If you want to argue that we can not provide health care because we have to destroy and kill others to make sure the markets increase, screw that.

You even say you agree we could do it.......but, we have to use that money destroying other countries.

 

[pknopp]

Oh giving away money too oil companies does make sense?

You know if we on the right had the time instead of living off of mon and dad we would debunk 95% of the lefts bullshit!

Debunking Myths About Federal Oil & Gas Subsidies
View attachment 308734
Feb 22, 2016 · a direct pecuniary aid furnished by a government to a private ... The tax break has been extended to oil & gas companies and allows

The argument here is NOT that they do not exist. The argument is the numbers argued is inflated. Is this the soap box you want to stand on?

Any proof, or at least a leftist link for you to stand on?

Proof of what? That I read the article and remarked on what it said? What I said it what the article argued.

It was?...Then why are you arguing?

I'm not. I was commenting on the article. Obviously you do not want to actually defend the article.