Will The Democrats Finally Admit They Are a Socialist Party?

[SAYIT]

Social-democracy is good and works all over the world. We use some socialism through police, military, r&d investment and ssi. Nothing is wrong with it. wake the fuck up?

Then I suggest you walk the walk and move to the "Worker's Paradise" of your choice, Comrade.

 

[SAYIT]

It's doing nicely? The government owes $200 trillion, economic growth is on the decline, and unemployment is a chronic state of affairs. How is that "doing nicely?"

Eh no, you, as a taxpayer owe $200 trillion (if that's correct). The government itself is doing fine as a quick google easily proves.

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...ers-of-congress-are-mostly-millionaires/?_r=0

You make a distinction without a difference. The government owes, therefore we owe it collectively.

I think it's very telling that Jantje thinks a) that government and the people are completely separate entities, and b) that government can spend the non-existent money, pass the debt on to the people, and then go on about its merry way, "doing fine".

See: Greece

 

[Vigilante]

It doesn't get any plainer than this dumb Democratic bitch.....

 

[Freewill]

Cops and roads aren't socialism, unless you think it's either socialism or anarchism, with no in-between. Social Security and Medicare, but I frankly find it funny that you leftists keep pointing to them as though you think conservatives approve of them. We do, in fact, call for replacing both systems, and the more you object to it, the more brilliant an idea it appears to be, just FYI.

Just saying, while liberals think they're "easily poking holes", they're actually just making conservatives look better by comparison. You need a more intelligent approach.

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

 

[Mac1958]

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

I understand the question, but a private company and a federal program really can't be equated.

There are several tweaks that can made to Social Security that a private company simply can't do -- a private company can't manipulate its income whenever it wants -- so there is no reason for Social Security to go under. Yes, they will involve higher taxation (among other things), but there is simply no way in hell that DC is going to let Social Security fail. It's inevitable, and due in part to the demographic distortion the Baby Boomer population has created in our economy.

On that note, once enough of the Baby Boomer population has died off (nice pleasant thought there), there will be a legitimate argument for tightening back up and lowering those taxes.

This is going to happen, Social Security isn't going anywhere, and no amount of protest will stop it.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Social-democracy is good and works all over the world. We use some socialism through police, military, r&d investment and ssi. Nothing is wrong with it. wake the fuck up?

Then I suggest you walk the walk and move to the "Worker's Paradise" of your choice, Comrade.

dear; it should be here in our at-will employment States.

 

[danielpalos]

It doesn't get any plainer than this dumb Democratic bitch.....

it is why some on the left prefer to advance fusion (an energy with a future) instead of being capitalists regarding fossil fuels.

see: Oregon's water wars.

 

[danielpalos]

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

I understand the question, but a private company and a federal program really can't be equated.

There are several tweaks that can made to Social Security that a private company simply can't do -- a private company can't manipulate its income whenever it wants -- so there is no reason for Social Security to go under. Yes, they will involve higher taxation (among other things), but there is simply no way in hell that DC is going to let Social Security fail. It's inevitable, and due in part to the demographic distortion the Baby Boomer population has created in our economy.

On that note, once enough of the Baby Boomer population has died off (nice pleasant thought there), there will be a legitimate argument for tightening back up and lowering those taxes.

This is going to happen, Social Security isn't going anywhere, and no amount of protest will stop it.
.

Firms in the private sector can go bankrupt; it even happened to banks circa 1929,

 

[Delta4Embassy]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

Would say it's no different than the Tea Party hitching their wagon to the GOP.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

Sure. Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism. You against those too?

One day we will have government everything.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

They will sit there and deny it to the very fuckin end. They will deny it to the end of their political party.

 

[danielpalos]

Sure. Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism. You against those too?

One day we will have government everything.

Only if capitalism keeps failing like in 1929 and whining about taxes.

 

[BULLDOG]

Sure. Social Security and fire departments are pure socialism. You against those too?

One day we will have government everything.

Quit whining.

 

[kaz]

Replacing Social Security and Medicare with what, precisely?

.

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

There is no social security trust fund, Holmes. They spent the money as they took it in.

And comparing taxes to a company earning money, that's rich

 

[GWV5903]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

We are in the 70th year of this debate and the Democrats have become more Socialist per election cycle, you have a better chance of hell freezing over...

 

[regent]

One of the benefits of the time passed is that the old Republican cry of "socialism leads to communism" is no longer a Republican battle cry, as it now seems most Americans no longer accept that concept.

 

[Arianrhod]

It's kind of hard to get offended by the label anymore when you've got thousands of enthusiastic Democrats lining up to hear Bernie Sanders' populist Scandinavian style welfare state plan for our nation. The man is, after all, the only self admitted Socialist elected to the U.S. Senate and he is edging closer and closer to toppling Hillary each day.

The problem is that so many Americans (at least the ones on message boards) are absolutely literal-minded and as such are apparently terrified of certain words.

 

[Freewill]

Depends on who's talking. There are a variety of suggestions out there, and you should be embarrassed that you don't know that.

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

I understand the question, but a private company and a federal program really can't be equated.

There are several tweaks that can made to Social Security that a private company simply can't do -- a private company can't manipulate its income whenever it wants -- so there is no reason for Social Security to go under. Yes, they will involve higher taxation (among other things), but there is simply no way in hell that DC is going to let Social Security fail. It's inevitable, and due in part to the demographic distortion the Baby Boomer population has created in our economy.

On that note, once enough of the Baby Boomer population has died off (nice pleasant thought there), there will be a legitimate argument for tightening back up and lowering those taxes.

This is going to happen, Social Security isn't going anywhere, and no amount of protest will stop it.
.

you never answered the question. SS by just looking at expenditures and receipts is not in trouble. They can tweak it if it appears that the economy is not growing enough, that is what they do. That is logical. So I don't see this great panic over SS that a tweak must be done.

 

[Mac1958]

I was asking you.

Personal responsibility?

Okay, expand on that.

Drop Social Security and Medicare and let seniors fend for themselves?

In some other thread, or this one, I asked for you opinion on SS since you are the only admitted financial guy.

Say you were looking at a portfolio of a company whose assets have risen every year for the last twenty. Their receipts exceed their expenditures by a wide margin. Their income is assured. Would you invest in such a company?

Well, according to the SS administration, that is the SS trust fund. Now maybe there is some super secret information that the SS administration isn't giving out but by what they publish SS isn't a problem.

I understand the question, but a private company and a federal program really can't be equated.

There are several tweaks that can made to Social Security that a private company simply can't do -- a private company can't manipulate its income whenever it wants -- so there is no reason for Social Security to go under. Yes, they will involve higher taxation (among other things), but there is simply no way in hell that DC is going to let Social Security fail. It's inevitable, and due in part to the demographic distortion the Baby Boomer population has created in our economy.

On that note, once enough of the Baby Boomer population has died off (nice pleasant thought there), there will be a legitimate argument for tightening back up and lowering those taxes.

This is going to happen, Social Security isn't going anywhere, and no amount of protest will stop it.
.

you never answered the question. SS by just looking at expenditures and receipts is not in trouble. They can tweak it if it appears that the economy is not growing enough, that is what they do. That is logical. So I don't see this great panic over SS that a tweak must be done.

Well, I've heard different reports, so I couldn't tell ya. I sure as hell do hear a lot of screaming about it Worse, I don't know that I would trust the data even if I saw it myself.

I'm just saying that, if SS is in trouble, there are relatively clear fixes.
.

 

[regent]

Some of the problems with Social Security: it was fashioned during the Great Depression and FDR did not want to pull too much money from the economy, two he didn't want it to be a socialist program but rather one in which the people financed it not the government. Three, FDR did not want the Republicans to be able to cancel it when they regained office. The program also had to stop the Townsend plan and other ideas that were gaining backers, and finally in a democracy the government seldom creates a perfect program, in that it must have some appeal to both sides of the Congress.