When Lefties pitch Socialism do they realize what decent people hear?

[Norman]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

That is sort of the model that Social Security and Medicare has been based on since it started -- and even when it started, the same fear-mongering took place -- it didn't stop these 2 programs from being the 2 most successful and popular programs in history -- it doesn't stop so-called conservatives from holding up signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!"

When republicans can offer better alternatives that garner a majority of public support, they wont have to try so hard to demonize the program that is working.

Social security, medicare... successful? When?

Last time I checked they pay far less than equivalent investment to stock market and are over 100 trillions in debt.

 

[Rustic]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Do Righties realize how it sounds when they bitch about "welfare moms" but have no problem with corporate bailouts?

Do they realize how it looks when they stand by private businesses who discriminate against gays, but they whine to the government when Facebook discriminates against them?

The unfortunate fact is that the ideological differences between the two major parties are few. They both favor big government control over society. They just have different targets in mind.

Depending on the federal government for anything is what gives birth to corruption...

Urban and rural America will never have the same interests and needs… That’s just the facts

 

[dblack]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Do Righties realize how it sounds when they bitch about "welfare moms" but have no problem with corporate bailouts?

Do they realize how it looks when they stand by private businesses who discriminate against gays, but they whine to the government when Facebook discriminates against them?

The unfortunate fact is that the ideological differences between the two major parties are few. They both favor big government control over society. They just have different targets in mind.

Depending on the federal government for anything is what gives birth to corruption...

Urban and rural America will never have the same interests and needs… That’s just the facts

Did you misquote? Sounds like you're responding to a different post.

 

[Mac1958]

Rustic, please comment on Post 76, in which OldLady said the following:

"Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution."

Please comment, addressing that quote directly, thanks.

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

 

[Mac1958]

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

 

[dblack]

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

Sounds like keeping the riff-raff in their place.

 

[Rustic]

Rustic, please comment on Post 76, in which OldLady said the following:

"Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution."

Please comment, addressing that quote directly, thanks.

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

It’s none of the federal government business, See that’s the problem we are not all in this together. Like socialism would have us be....

 

[Rustic]

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

That is exactly why it does not take a village…

 

[Norman]

Rustic, please comment on Post 76, in which OldLady said the following:

"Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution."

Please comment, addressing that quote directly, thanks.

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

So when should the tax cuts for the AR owners going to go on effect? How are we going to give money to the poor if there are almost no taxes to prevent the revolution by the AR owners?

Furthermore what makes you sure that this money is not used to conduct, not prevent the revolution? How does giving people who want revolutions money, prevent revolutions again?

 

[Mac1958]

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

Sounds like keeping the riff-raff in their place.

Well, in a way, it is.
.

 

[Rustic]

Rustic, please comment on Post 76, in which OldLady said the following:

"Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution."

Please comment, addressing that quote directly, thanks.

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

So when should the tax cuts for the AR owners going to go on effect? How are we going to give money to the poor if there are almost no taxes to prevent the revolution by the AR owners?

Furthermore what makes you sure that this money is not used to conduct, not prevent the revolution? How does giving people money prevent it?

Yep, Depending on the federal government/collective to do the right thing is a no go from the start...

 

[Mac1958]

Rustic, please comment on Post 76, in which OldLady said the following:

"Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution."

Please comment, addressing that quote directly, thanks.

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

So when should the tax cuts for the AR owners going to go on effect? How are we going to give money to the poor if there are almost no taxes to prevent the revolution by the AR owners?

Furthermore what makes you sure that this money is not used to conduct, not prevent the revolution? How does giving people money prevent it?

I don't know what you mean by AR.

As I said, we can choose to pay a little for insurance now, or we can self-insure. Obviously your preference is the latter.
.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

That is sort of the model that Social Security and Medicare has been based on since it started -- and even when it started, the same fear-mongering took place -- it didn't stop these 2 programs from being the 2 most successful and popular programs in history -- it doesn't stop so-called conservatives from holding up signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!"

When republicans can offer better alternatives that garner a majority of public support, they wont have to try so hard to demonize the program that is working.

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs...
And currently far more people are taking far more out... far less people are putting far less in... every year.
That is socialism in a nut shell...

You can’t make something out of nothing… That being socialism

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs...

Really?


You should start with the actual definition of socialism and work from there.

 

[dblack]

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

Sounds like keeping the riff-raff in their places

Well, in a way, it is.
.

Yep. The horseshit about compassion, or lack thereof is a smokescreen. Socialism radically expands government power to control society. That's the point.

 

[BrokeLoser]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

Do you pay taxes to support schools? I do. Uet I have no children. Do I think my tax dollars have been unfairly confiscated? I do not. Because I would rather have the kids in school developing their skills and being made ready to enter society as productive citizens than have them poorly taught and become an incurious rabble.

We can't help it if you and the rest of the socialist cattle want to be slaughtered. The fact is government schools are where the government loots the innocent to pay for the brainwashing of their own children. There is no institution in American more corrupt or insidious than government run education.

Do you pay taxes to support community facilities like,parks, libraries or meeting halls? I do. Do I think my tax dollars are being unfairly confiscated for things I might not use? I do not. Because I think the increase in quality of life and property values is worth my taxes.

We all pay taxes, numskull. Property developers build recreations facilities in the communities they create. We don't need government to increase our property values.

So I think that healthcare and education are vital for our national vitality? Absolutely. Because no citizen should go bankrupt because the healthcare she needs is too expensive or worse, unavailable.

Really? Why not? You think it's perfectly OK to go bankrupt paying for lawyers because you happen to have worked in the Trump campaign at some point in your life. Why is it OK to go bankrupt for one reason, but not the other?

You can call it spin. But you also should defend why you think our health and education should be available only to those who can afford it. Is it that the right of the people is the wealthy have the right to horde their wealth while the rest of America's citizen have the right to live precariously?

The wealthy do have the right to keep what they earn. The claim that they don't is the battle cry of a thug. Life is inherently risky. There is no moral principle that says someone else has to pay to relieve you of that risk. That's your job, not theirs.

The wealthy do have the right to keep what they earn
Let them eat cake.
That didn't turn out so well for them, though, even though it was their right?
Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Keeping the poor fed and marginally comfortable is not to be "nice." It's not communist, either. It's good social insurance against revolution.

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Most of us invite revolt...we think it’s needed.
In the animal kingdom animals are intelligent enough to shut down their baby factories when resources are scarce...not our animals in our ghettos and barrios though...their baby making continues around the clock as good Americans keep throwing hush money order the top them because we have a bunch of pussies scared of a “revolution”....haha...funny shit

 

[Biff_Poindexter]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

That is sort of the model that Social Security and Medicare has been based on since it started -- and even when it started, the same fear-mongering took place -- it didn't stop these 2 programs from being the 2 most successful and popular programs in history -- it doesn't stop so-called conservatives from holding up signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!"

When republicans can offer better alternatives that garner a majority of public support, they wont have to try so hard to demonize the program that is working.

Social security, medicare... successful? When?

Last time I checked they pay far less than equivalent investment to stock market and are over 100 trillions in debt.

Like I said -- when folks continue to have to lie -- instead of produce their own policies and win public support -- that means their policies suck...its just that simple

 

[Tehon]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

Marx is decent people.


Quite apart from the analysis so far given, it was in general a mistake to make a fuss about so-called distribution and put the principal stress on it.

Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- I

There really wouldn’t be any problem with socialism if it did not force everybody into the shit... But that is not how Socialism works if forces everybody whether they want to be part of it or not into the collective. So fuck your village

Our socioeconomic reality is in reality a social decision.

I'm forced to participate in a capitalist system.

And you live in a collective society, in spite of your irrational hatred of it.

 

[Mac1958]

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

Sounds like keeping the riff-raff in their places

Well, in a way, it is.
.

Yep. The horseshit about compassion, or lack thereof is a smokescreen. Socialism radically expands government power to control society. That's the point.

Well, you can look at it that way. And since I don't know what you mean by "socialism", since that's not what I'm talking about, I'll just stick to my point.
.

 

[Rustic]

No matter how it’s cleverly spun or packaged ALL decent people hear it the same way.
“Provide me with shit that other people pay for...I’m entitled to free shit because I stand on U.S. soil.”
Do they realize NOBODY good and decent is shameless enough to make these types of requests?
I’m hoping the pitchmasters such as Mac1958 will weigh in here.

It's not a matter of being good,and decent. In fact, to imply as much casts the opposite on those who espouse democratic,socialism.

It's not their alleged goodness and decency that prevents them from doing jderstanding democratic socialism. In fact, plenty of good,and decent people would fight to hold on to the democratic socialism they enjoy, namely Social Security and Medicare.

What keeps them from understanding democratic socialism is their ignorance about what it actually means. Couple that ignorance with a steady diet of propaganda, and their understanding is even more entrenched.

If only reputable pundits were honest with these people,,we wouldn't be arguing points but honestly discussing them.

I am quite sure that, if asked in an unbiased manner, many people would agree that the kind of healthcare system enjoyed in every other industrialized nation would show real benefits here. Canada has universal healthcare, but the Canadian example is never proffered by biased pundits. Instead, they rant about Cuba, Venezuela and China. Are the Canadians as oppressed as the Venezuelans? Are the British as poor as the Cubans? Is there the same degree of freedom in Japan as there is in China?

Many would agree, if asked in an unbiased way, that community college or trade schools should be free of tuition so some may transfer those credits to other colleges or universities or begin a career in a trade. The cost of education is prohibitive now. But we all know that an educated population, a skilled population is vastly more competitive than populations with fewer educated and skilled citizens to fill a work force.

Just blaring the evils of socialism,without explaining the long term benefits hamstrings the discussion at best, and robs America of the potential,of its citizens at worst.

That’s your spin huh...you sticking with that?
I think we all know most don’t have a problem taking care of our elderly whom have paid their dues.
Why don’t you go ahead and try again.

That is sort of the model that Social Security and Medicare has been based on since it started -- and even when it started, the same fear-mongering took place -- it didn't stop these 2 programs from being the 2 most successful and popular programs in history -- it doesn't stop so-called conservatives from holding up signs saying "Keep your government hands off my Medicare!!"

When republicans can offer better alternatives that garner a majority of public support, they wont have to try so hard to demonize the program that is working.

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs...
And currently far more people are taking far more out... far less people are putting far less in... every year.
That is socialism in a nut shell...

You can’t make something out of nothing… That being socialism

Social Security and Medicare are socialist entitlement programs...

Really?


You should start with the actual definition of socialism and work from there.

All socialism is the same… And leads to failure

 

[Norman]

So under the threat of revolution one has to do with the collective says? That’s what I hear…

Is that your response?
.

You really believe that people who are too dumb to secure steady source of food in a nation where obesity is the biggest health problem, are capable of revolution? I am very afraid of their super soakers...

Usually it's the strong that do revolutions, the ones who are tired of their money feeding a bunch of dead weight. The ones with closets filled with AR-15s. Why should those people be happy to throw 40% of their income away again? Let them keep their money and we won't have a revolution.

People just love to put words in other's mouths here.

No, I'm saying the metaphor is excellent: We purchase insurance to mitigate risk. In this particular case, electoral risk, not war.

Some people like to self-insure. The question is whether they have the resources to do so.
.

So when should the tax cuts for the AR owners going to go on effect? How are we going to give money to the poor if there are almost no taxes to prevent the revolution by the AR owners?

Furthermore what makes you sure that this money is not used to conduct, not prevent the revolution? How does giving people money prevent it?

I don't know what you mean by AR.

As I said, we can choose to pay a little for insurance now, or we can self-insure. Obviously your preference is the latter.
.

AR-15 owners.

It seems like my point went over your head. I was saying that we should insure against the AR-15 owners who pay massive amounts of taxes and get no return. Obviously, this is not a good deal for them, kicking some revolutionary ass would be a far better deal. So to prevent revolution we need to lower taxes and as such there won't be money to pay your insurance money. Good thing they got ARs and can protect themselves.

 

[Rustic]

Holy shit, and that fucking nails it. Consider that line stolen. Often.

The libertarian Right simply doesn't, or won't, or can't, seem to grasp this.
.

Sounds like globalism to me… No thanks

Sounds like risk mitigation to me, but to each his own.
.

Sounds like keeping the riff-raff in their places

Well, in a way, it is.
.

Yep. The horseshit about compassion, or lack thereof is a smokescreen. Socialism radically expands government power to control society. That's the point.

Yep, The only people of benefit from socialism are the control freaks