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

[forkup]

No, Obama's priorities were not what he claimed. Congress was fully on board with his pro-corporate policies. They bucked a few social issues which is really not that important to start with.

In another time that never happened. Obama doesn't decide to do a corporate give away of our health care (which is what Obamacare was). We don't get the mess we did to get it passed. We don't get the lies about what it was. The (D)s dont get crushed over all of that.

Let's say that all Obama could get done was getting rid of the pre-existing condition problem and getting people up to age 26 to remain on their parents insurance. Both were very popular options and would have went over really well. Obama argues up to the 2010 elections that he needed help to further these ideas. The (D)'s don't lose the House and Senate. Obama could have built upon those two programs. But no, he wanted to reward the Insurance and pharmaceutical companies (and Wall Street) that funded his campaign.

Regardless.

I maintain, the elites have done this all on purpose.

Do not be deceived into believing this is "people power."

This was a purposeful application of the Hegelian Dialectic for an End Game.

The powers that be are holding all the cards.

A nomination and election of Trump and Bernie do not serve to destroy the system as usual. Do not be deceived. Things will not improve in any significant way for the average person.

If Bernie wins and does nothing for the people (which is an idea I totally reject as that is who he has always been) those like myself (a growing number of people) will go even more extreme.

Bernie cares about the power of the STATE. . . and control of people.

A bit naive. Well meaning? Perhaps. But that is his highest priority, NOT helping people.

Bernie Sanders: 'I don't believe in charities' - WND

You know this confuses me. Firstly the quote is from 1981. Somehow I don't exactly know how relevant that still is to someone's position. Secondly, every day I hear people on this board say how lefties want 'free shit'. Here he says he doesn't believe in that and somehow that's destroying society?

Thirdly unrelated I also want to add this. During the industrial revolution, the church in an effort to deal with the growing unrest of the working class an unrest that saw the birth of Socialism and unions it's response was and I'm simplifying here that the working class should NOT organize. They should simply know their place and it was the rich people's duty to give them charity. Of course, the charity wouldn't have meant an end to child labor, the 'chit system' 14-hour workdays and the like. In that light, I understand what Bernie is saying.

Charity even today is to often used as a way for the ultra-rich to inoculate themselves against public opinion turning against them. The concept itself is not bad but in the end, it doesn't solve problems.

So. .. socialists pointing out his ideological consistency over time. . . that's O.K.?


Anyone else does so. . . .


The problem with the left? Is their leaders are out of touch with the nation. They are trying to use class warfare, and it just hasn't worked, and won't ever work again. Folks don't like it anymore.

Do the poor and middle class struggle? Sure. Do most of them recognize that there is a wealth gap? Sure.

But they also, if they are educated, understand what the super wealthy do, and have done for society. The collective memory of the USSR vs the US in economic terms, is a lesson the planet will never forget.

Even now, everyone knows, economically, China uses State capitalism, not socialism.

Politicians should stop bashing the rich… most of us just don’t agree
Politicians should stop bashing the rich… most of us just don’t agree | Sonia Sodha

". . .The left has had more success when it makes the case in terms designed to appeal to the persuadable. For example, the campaign for equal marriage in the US achieved such a big impact because it framed the argument using conservative values of family and responsibility, rather than leftwing values of equality and human rights. When it comes to higher taxes, there is evidence to suggest that the public can be won over; six in 10 think the government should be taxing and spending more. But, according to Nicky Hawkins, a communications strategist at the FrameWorks Institute, Labour needs to do more explaining, rather than relying on shorthands such as “the top 1%” and “corporate greed”, which might resonate in a constituency meeting but not in a party political broadcast. “There are clear lessons from attempts to reform harmful tobacco and food industry practices,” Hawkins says. “Campaigners need to succinctly define the ‘baddie’ and explain their wrongdoing. Too often, they assume people automatically see things the way they do.”

This is consistent with new research about to be published by Tax Justice UK that found that, when making the case for a more progressive tax system, bashing the wealthy resonated far less well with voters than specific arguments about closing loopholes and increasing particular taxes. It might be less sexy than talk of predatory wealth extractors, but it is more effective. The left might also do well to focus on the instrumental rather than the moral case: tax as a building block for a better society rather than as a way to punish the undeserving rich.. . . "

There are a few things to respond to here.

Firstly, do you really want to talk about hypocrisy and ideological consistency to me? Until a few years ago the GOP was the party of free trade. That didn't stop them from supporting tariffs. Until a few years ago the GOP was the party of Evangelicals didn't stop them from overwhelmingly supporting a serial adulterer who literally paid porn stars to have sex with him. The only thing that is on-brand is the tax cuts and even that was accomplished by borrowing money. There goes the GOP's stance on debt. I would love to talk with ideologically consistent Republicans. The problem is they don't exist anymore.

Secondly, I love how you are trying to imply that the super-wealthy are a force for good before and now. I gave the example of the industrial revolution. Child labor, exploitative work hours and a political and religious system geared to sustaining it. Those are not forces for good. I would argue all the things that we now recognize as quality of life things, pensions, paid holidays, education for our children, universal suffrage, sick leave, wages that allow for luxuries, etc. etc. were achieved despite the rich not because of them. Today when the price of insulin doubled in a five-year period that's not because of altruism. When companies promote and bribe doctors to prescribe Ophiods it's not altruism. When banks issue loans to people who they know can't pay them back that's not altruism.

People might not like the idea of class warfare but that's exactly what is happening. And the rich are winning. They are winning because they have convinced both the left and right that the war is between left and right and not between rich and not-rich. Don't get me wrong I do not begrudge anybody their wealth. The thing is when you do the stuff as described in the previous paragraph you begrudge not just what wealth I do have but even my right to live. How much sense does it make for someone on the right who doesn't have a lot of money to be against affordable healthcare? How much sense does it make for someone on the right who isn't rich to be against being able to send their kids to college without having to save their entire life to allow for it or make the kids themselves go into debt? Yet that's exactly what happens.

 

[peach174]

". . . 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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

 

[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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

No. They simply don't allow the greed that lead to things like the outrageous costs of insulin. They put the people's health above "shareholder value".

 

[Mac1958]

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

 

[forkup]

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

 

[imawhosure]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Mac1958]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

 

[Mac-7]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

 

[imawhosure]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

 

[jc456]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

and that system tripled down on their perversions. amazing. Now even Bernie wants your guns. how hitlerish of him.

 

[jc456]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

explain. don't just throw shit out and see how it sticks. give your example. come on man, grow the fk up.

 

[jc456]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

massively raise taxes on what money? no one will have a fking job. they confiscated it all. That's what happened in Venezuela. I wish the kids would stop running our facilities. It's called fking math, MATH, MATH

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

and that system tripled down on their perversions. amazing. Now even Bernie wants your guns. how hitlerish of him.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

explain. don't just throw shit out and see how it sticks. give your example. come on man, grow the fk up.

The arguments have been made over and over.

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

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.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

massively raise taxes on what money? no one will have a fking job. they confiscated it all. That's what happened in Venezuela. I wish the kids would stop running our facilities. It's called fking math, MATH, MATH

The Federal Reserve is pumping billions and billions for wall street, why is it that they can't for health care?

 

[jc456]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

and that system tripled down on their perversions. amazing. Now even Bernie wants your guns. how hitlerish of him.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

what's your opinion. I don't want to read someone else's, you're here, I want your opinion. what's wrong with red flag?

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

and that system tripled down on their perversions. amazing. Now even Bernie wants your guns. how hitlerish of him.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

what's your opinion. I don't want to read someone else's, you're here, I want your opinion. what's wrong with red flag?

The complete lack of a constitutionally protected right of due process.

 

[cnm]

American Capitalism does not work without a socialist support system.

Privatise profit, socialise risk. What could go wrong?

 

[cnm]

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.

I believe Flash has no compunction about accepting an education funded by the GI Bill, is that the name of it?

For him, like libertarians everywhere, it all depends on whose ox is getting gored.