Collective wealth leads to collective well-being

[Mac-7]

But many worked very hard to get an education or start a business and managed their money wisely

You're right about productive workers whether they be labor or management; some of the hardest-working (and most greedy) people I've met have been small business owners.

I'm not referring to those individuals when I complain about shareholder privilege.

"I mean speculators who buy and sell stock on the secondary market which, as I understand it, comprise about 99% of stock market activity?

The Divine Right of Capital by Marjorie Kelly: A Summary

"Today, our worldview has a bias – that stockholders are to be paid as much as possible, while employees are to be paid as little as possible. 'Income for one group is declared good, and income for another group is declared bad.'

"Nowhere is this more clear than in our financial statements. Here’s the basic formula you’ll find on financial statements:

Capital Income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Employee income + Cost of materials)

"Kelly uses some simple algebra to show that this formula could just as easily be re-written as:

"Employee income + Retained earnings = Revenue – (Capital income + Cost of materials)"

We may have a mutual enemy

the large wall st investors were prime movers in the drive to outsource production from America to china

but bernie bots like the one who started this thread are true socialists who just want other peoples wealth and dont care about the source

socialism kills innovation and economic growth

We do have a mutual enemy. The wealthy elites have formed a coalition with the underclass against the middle and working classes.

Its like the example of two wolves and a sheep stranded on an island voting on what have for dinner

 

[Pogo]

Is the national military a private enterprise?

No?

Then it's government.
Just like the power grid, the roads, the airways, the airwaves, the internets, the social safety nets such as they are, the post office, the local library, the municipal water supply, the local fire department, and so on.

That's one of two things. It's either socialism, or it's cherrypicking. You can't go "NO SOCIALISM" and then follow it with " except for this, and that, and that over there, and this too, oh and also this...". It's a matter of degree. Government handles things of a scale too large and too universal to be elective. It's just a matter of how much.

Are you aware there was once a time when your local fire department was a subscription service? Like a paywall? And that if you hadn't personally paid them their protection money and your house caught fire, they'd come by and watch if they came at all? That didn't pan out well for the community, so now it's ----- socialism. Covers everybody. Because COMMUNITY invests in itself.

Are you calling the military "deadbeats"? Or firefighters? Mail carriers? The CDC?

According to your goofy definition all government activity is socislism

but thats wrong

government does raise the army and navy for national defense

thats because not even the richest American could afford their own privately owned aircraft carrier

but we can expect every able bodied person to provide for their own basic needs

today we socialism in the form of the wipe-every-nose welfare state

but that is a perversion of what made America great

Correct, and because not even the riches American can afford to run fire departments, deliver the mails, screen proposed drugs, keep planes from flying into each other, etc etc etc etc etc. It's no different.

Thats not socialism

its just the proper role of government

but forcing one American to support unproductive people is consistent with the marxist standard of from each according to ability, to each according to need

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

 

[Mac-7]

According to your goofy definition all government activity is socislism

but thats wrong

government does raise the army and navy for national defense

thats because not even the richest American could afford their own privately owned aircraft carrier

but we can expect every able bodied person to provide for their own basic needs

today we socialism in the form of the wipe-every-nose welfare state

but that is a perversion of what made America great

Correct, and because not even the riches American can afford to run fire departments, deliver the mails, screen proposed drugs, keep planes from flying into each other, etc etc etc etc etc. It's no different.

Thats not socialism

its just the proper role of government

but forcing one American to support unproductive people is consistent with the marxist standard of from each according to ability, to each according to need

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

 

[there4eyeM]

The problem with labels especially emotionally-charged labels is they're used as slurs and flung like turds, without stopping to define what they actually mean. The Cult of Ignorance is required to simply accept that these are "BAD" but can never explain why. Even though the public library, public parks and museums, the military, the communications infrastructure, the highway system, the water supply, the fire department, the agencies that keep planes from flying into each other, broadcast stations from bleeding into each other and unsafe drugs from producing Thalidomide babies, Social Security, Medicare, the postal service -- is ALL Socialism.

You obviously dont know what socialism is

an example: the military is not a form of socialism

we should do things collectively that cannot be done individually

and defense is one of those things

Is the national military a private enterprise?

No?

Then it's government.
Just like the power grid, the roads, the airways, the airwaves, the internets, the social safety nets such as they are, the post office, the local library, the municipal water supply, the local fire department, and so on.

That's one of two things. It's either socialism, or it's cherrypicking. You can't go "NO SOCIALISM" and then follow it with " except for this, and that, and that over there, and this too, oh and also this...". It's a matter of degree. Government handles things of a scale too large and too universal to be elective. It's just a matter of how much.

Are you aware there was once a time when your local fire department was a subscription service? Like a paywall? And that if you hadn't personally paid them their protection money and your house caught fire, they'd come by and watch if they came at all? That didn't pan out well for the community, so now it's ----- socialism. Covers everybody. Because COMMUNITY invests in itself.

However involuntary taking of money from people who earn it and giving the money to deadbeats who didnt earn it is a form of socialism

Are you calling the military "deadbeats"? Or firefighters? Mail carriers? The CDC?

According to your goofy definition all government activity is socislism

but thats wrong

government does raise the army and navy for national defense

thats because not even the richest American could afford their own privately owned aircraft carrier

but we can expect every able bodied person to provide for their own basic needs

today we socialism in the form of the wipe-every-nose welfare state

but that is a perversion of what made America great

Correct, and because not even the riches American can afford to run fire departments, deliver the mails, screen proposed drugs, keep planes from flying into each other, etc etc etc etc etc. It's no different.

One more thought

most schools, fire departments, and hospitals began as private entities

indeed the greatness of America was largely built by the private sector not government

OK, so America was built by hard-as-nails ancestors. Technology was low, life was cheap, help was family or community or non-existent.
Today you are faced with the soft, spoiled offspring of those successful progenitors. What are you going to do, wait for them to decide to be "hard as nails"?
Society has evolved, the entire world is different. Things don't have to be so "make or break", "do or die", vicious competition to survive. It is possible to do things differently. Lament the change of character all you like, it achieves nothing. The only useful question is how to educate in such a way the individual initiative is valued while human values are maintained.

 

[Pogo]

Correct, and because not even the riches American can afford to run fire departments, deliver the mails, screen proposed drugs, keep planes from flying into each other, etc etc etc etc etc. It's no different.

Thats not socialism

its just the proper role of government

but forcing one American to support unproductive people is consistent with the marxist standard of from each according to ability, to each according to need

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

 

[Mac-7]

You obviously dont know what socialism is

an example: the military is not a form of socialism

we should do things collectively that cannot be done individually

and defense is one of those things

Is the national military a private enterprise?

No?

Then it's government.
Just like the power grid, the roads, the airways, the airwaves, the internets, the social safety nets such as they are, the post office, the local library, the municipal water supply, the local fire department, and so on.

That's one of two things. It's either socialism, or it's cherrypicking. You can't go "NO SOCIALISM" and then follow it with " except for this, and that, and that over there, and this too, oh and also this...". It's a matter of degree. Government handles things of a scale too large and too universal to be elective. It's just a matter of how much.

Are you aware there was once a time when your local fire department was a subscription service? Like a paywall? And that if you hadn't personally paid them their protection money and your house caught fire, they'd come by and watch if they came at all? That didn't pan out well for the community, so now it's ----- socialism. Covers everybody. Because COMMUNITY invests in itself.

However involuntary taking of money from people who earn it and giving the money to deadbeats who didnt earn it is a form of socialism

Are you calling the military "deadbeats"? Or firefighters? Mail carriers? The CDC?

According to your goofy definition all government activity is socislism

but thats wrong

government does raise the army and navy for national defense

thats because not even the richest American could afford their own privately owned aircraft carrier

but we can expect every able bodied person to provide for their own basic needs

today we socialism in the form of the wipe-every-nose welfare state

but that is a perversion of what made America great

Correct, and because not even the riches American can afford to run fire departments, deliver the mails, screen proposed drugs, keep planes from flying into each other, etc etc etc etc etc. It's no different.

One more thought

most schools, fire departments, and hospitals began as private entities

indeed the greatness of America was largely built by the private sector not government

OK, so America was built by hard-as-nails ancestors. Technology was low, life was cheap, help was family or community or non-existent.
Today you are faced with the soft, spoiled offspring of those successful progenitors. What are you going to do, wait for them to decide to be "hard as nails"?
Society has evolved, the entire world is different. Things don't have to be so "make or break", "do or die", vicious competition to survive. It is possible to do things differently. Lament the change of character all you like, it achieves nothing. The only useful question is how to educate in such a way the individual initiative is valued while human values are maintained.

Human nature hasnt changed

if people are offered an easy way out without having to work many will accept it

and the longer it goes on the more needy people there will be

if no welfare at all is bad so is the wipe-every-nose approach

 

[Mac-7]

Thats not socialism

its just the proper role of government

but forcing one American to support unproductive people is consistent with the marxist standard of from each according to ability, to each according to need

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

Trump never sat on his butt doing nothing

but many trump haters have

 

[Mac-7]

Thats not socialism

its just the proper role of government

but forcing one American to support unproductive people is consistent with the marxist standard of from each according to ability, to each according to need

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

You are confusing government PUBLIC services with paying lazy people to do nothing

 

[Pogo]

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

Trump never sat on his butt doing nothing

but many trump haters have

He watches TV all day. Which explains a lot, the least of which is why so many of his appointments are based on "hey I've seen this guy on TV".

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

In the case of healthcare I would have our government run it yes and it would be funded through taxation, however, that CEO would invest into that system, the company itself would invest into that system, and the employees would all invest into that system. All invest in that system and use that system and all have equal interest in seeing it succeed.

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

Well Comrade, 4 billion years of evolution crafted that drive for survival and self reliance, so good luck changing it.

Grace clearly lacks wisdom...or she’s being extremely disingenuous...I have a hunch that she is in cahoots with those 57 genders, drag queens and wetbacks whom all need and are begging for a commie-lite version of America that allows them to burrow deeper into evil whiteys wallet.

No it's just that the gender topic and immigration topic really has very little to do with this topic that's all.

 

[Pogo]

All you're doing is calling it two different things depending on which ones you choose to accept.

As I said ---------- cherrypicking.

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

You are confusing government PUBLIC services with paying lazy people to do nothing

No actually YOU are doing that. I didn't even bring it up.

 

[Mac-7]

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

Trump never sat on his butt doing nothing

but many trump haters have

He watches TV all day. Which explains a lot, the least of which is why so many of his appointments are based on "hey I've seen this guy on TV".

He watches tv after a lifetime of hard word

get a grip on reality

 

[Mac-7]

When there is a gun to your head, it isn't investment.


America has the most advance health care system in the world, you're dedicated to changing that...

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

I am dedicated to seeing a culture change which will then allow other changes.

So, do you think the culture of 57 genders and drag queens converting 4 year olds is superior to the culture of a strong family ties from the 50's ? The Marxists declared war on our culture, so you're not pleased with the results?

The culture change i'm talking about is inwardly the moving away from individualism and towards instead a culture of thinking about the good of the many. It's also outwardly transitioning away from American exceptionalism and into a humble American nationalism. As for 57 genders and drag queens that's not the aspects of culture that i'm talking about really.

Well Comrade, 4 billion years of evolution crafted that drive for survival and self reliance, so good luck changing it.

Grace clearly lacks wisdom...or she’s being extremely disingenuous...I have a hunch that she is in cahoots with those 57 genders, drag queens and wetbacks whom all need and are begging for a commie-lite version of America that allows them to burrow deeper into evil whiteys wallet.

No it's just that the gender topic and immigration topic really has very little to do with this topic that's all.

Do you agree with welfare for natural born American citizens only?

if not then this topic does involve immigrstion

 

[Mac-7]

Not at all

a fire department is there for the benefit of everyone

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

Many Americans pay enough in taxes due to their hard work to buy a new car every year

but some deadbeat welfare bum is driving that car

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

You are confusing government PUBLIC services with paying lazy people to do nothing

No actually YOU are doing that. I didn't even bring it up.

I can understand why a lib would avoid the topic of lazy people on welfare

 

[Pogo]

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

Trump never sat on his butt doing nothing

but many trump haters have

He watches TV all day. Which explains a lot, the least of which is why so many of his appointments are based on "hey I've seen this guy on TV".

He watches tv after a lifetime of hard word

get a grip on reality

Did you mean "hard wood"?

Actually this is a sponge who has literally never had a job in his life until January 20, 2017. And is unlikely to have that job much longer.

 

[Pogo]

Exactly. That's socialism, because it addresses the social needs. Not the profit needs of some individual or corporation but that of the community. The many, not the one.

Maybe you're OK with the community having a fire department but not OK with it putting up a museum -- both using taxpayer funds. That would be where your line is. You can put your line wherever you want, but don't claim you're not using a line to separate the same thing into two different labels.

OK now you've tossed all coherency out the car window

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

You are confusing government PUBLIC services with paying lazy people to do nothing

No actually YOU are doing that. I didn't even bring it up.

I can understand why a lib would avoid the topic of lazy people on welfare

And yet, you can't understand that you brought it up and I didn't.

 

[Mac-7]

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

Trump never sat on his butt doing nothing

but many trump haters have

He watches TV all day. Which explains a lot, the least of which is why so many of his appointments are based on "hey I've seen this guy on TV".

He watches tv after a lifetime of hard word

get a grip on reality

Did you mean "hard wood"?

Actually this is a sponge who has literally never had a job in his life until January 20, 2017. And is unlikely to have that job much longer.

Trump never worked on a factory assembly line as far as I know

but running a major business involves a lot of hard work though not physical labor

 

[Mac-7]

Paying welfare bums to sit at home and watch tv IS NOT in the public interest

Are you referring to Rump? I agree, he should shut that damn thing off.

and I would argue that it does not even benefit the welfare bum in the long term or generation to generation

Again, agreed. There is no redeeming value in TV. Zero. Or for that matter, in indolence generally, but TV makes it worse.

thats the true face of socialism and it does not belong in America

So aaaaaaaallllllllllllllll those public services we mentioned, from the FAA to the military to the power grid to the CDC, to Social Security, etc etc etc etc etc ............... are just magical flooby dust peppered by pixies in the air. You run with that.

You are confusing government PUBLIC services with paying lazy people to do nothing

No actually YOU are doing that. I didn't even bring it up.

I can understand why a lib would avoid the topic of lazy people on welfare

And yet, you can't understand that you brought it up and I didn't.

You were demanding public services in the name of socialism and welfare is one of those

 

[Grace Is Stoked]

This is my first attempt at creating a thread and I wasn't sure if this belongs in Politics or not but since the topic hits on several political issues of today I think it's probably fitting. To be transparent and to make this known I am not advocating for communism or even socialism with this opinion, it's just some personal thoughts.

What i'm talking about is using capitalism, free trade, free markets and our collective wealth as a nation to create collective well-being by investing in our society. That investment (taxes) would yield benefits like "free" medical care, dental care, education, maternity/paternity leaves, pre-k, among other benefits and programs provided for all citizens while also reducing the uncertainty millions of American feel everyday around these topics, the risk that millions of Americans take everyday for these topics, the lack of mobility and the the anxiety and stress that millions of Americans are under because of these issues. Reduced stress, reduced fear, reduced individual risk, reduced inequity in turn yields increased happiness, increased hope, increased societal investment, and increased collective well-being. There is a lot of detail that would go into taxation and what constitutes as "free" but that's something i'm open to discussing as this evolves.

People will often view higher taxes as a burden, and will also view higher taxes that would go towards increased government provided programs as socialist, however, if all citizens and companies truly contribute towards these programs and social programs by using the wealth we all create then it should be viewed as an investment, not a burden in my opinion. You are investing in the collective well-being of all people, including yourself, and if we are all contributing, if we are all putting our money into the effort, if we are all sacrificing a greater percentage of our personal gain for the greater collective good then what you end up with is a shared system that in essence purchases quality of life. No system is perfect, but closing the gap, creating a society that views success as something to share and not hoard, and putting the good of the many above the individual is in my opinion something to work towards.

At the bottom of every discussion/argument about Socialism/Collective versus Freedom/Free Markets is the main difference between you and me... You believe in ASSURING a "zero risk" life for everyone at the expense of others. You said exactly that in your Opening Post.

Nothing is "free".. And YOUR freedom/liberties are as much damaged by taking away your economic choices as they are by restricting your Civil Liberties.. You believe that HUGE govt has the wisdom, compassion, dedication to do even MORE than they've already failed at...

"Democratic Socialism" is what it ALWAYS starts out as.. In Zimbabwe, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Cuba and all the other "progressive revolutions"... What happens when the economy crashes, we LOSE our lead in innovation, research and products -- and the people start to "collectively slide" to the bottom of standards of world living?

These "do-gooders" need to take more choices and powers from you.. Maybe start to control speech, round up dissidents. AND SOON -- your choices and freedom are no more...

You want everyone else to "lift up" a person who maybe break-danced or tokked their way thru HS and quit at the 11th grade to a RISK FREE life. OR worse, depend on monstrous, inept, and slow-moving govt to make this happen.. Or even a college grad that chose Music History as a major rather than a profession that is MORE VALUED by society with concomitant increased financial security as society rewards them for what they can contribute, not what "bureaucrats" can do for them..

Most of the time, the folks who BELIEVE this also have a bloated view of what government is capable of. A govt that has MISMANAGED EVERY "UNIVERSAL" program, should NEVER be trusted with MORE "universal" programs.. A government that could not produce a "Marketplace Health Insurance" website for less than a $Bill and MONTHS late IS NOT your "technology benchmark" for success..

I've got some experience with the ACA Obamacare program.. It is the MOST INTRUSIVE and LEAST transparent way of CHOOSING your healthcare.. In fact, there are FEW choices that even make sense. And the plans get WORSE EVERY YEAR... And let's not make that about "political stunts" and party wars.. The FACT IS --- Americans cannot count on their govt to even FUNCTION anymore...

AND YOU WANT MORE OF THIS???? Are you CRAZY????

I’m not a socialist or a communist though and I am supportive of free markets. What I am saying is to use the success of the free market and the wealth gained through capitalism to be partnered with a increased societal effort to reduce inequity, reduce some the negative aspects of individualism by considering the collective good in what we do as a country, and make it so that all citizens regardless of their income contribute to the systems that we all will equally use. Its capitalism but a more compassionate capitalism in my opinion.

I will say that I failed in my first post to mention the cultural change and the mindset change that would be necessary for this to work. As we are right now in this country with the deep divides and conflicting ideas of what is “American” or not it would be unrealistic unfortunately in my opinion. The key change would have to be a new mindset that values the good of the many over the success of the individual. Let me be clear im not talking about shared misery but instead creating a much larger middle class by closing income gaps and having everyone invest into the shared systems. If we are all invested and using the same systems we all have a more equal motivation to have it succeed in my opinion.

Any time you remove the individual in the name of common good, you are going against human nature. The results are horrific. I respect your intentions, but a society that keys on individualism is required for maximized well being. You can't socially engineer a middle class. Shared systems lead to the opposite of any motivation. The only way to change the 'mindset' towards collectivism is authoritarianism and crushing the individual.

I could have done a better job explaining my position on individualism but i'll try now to explain it more. I'm not saying that a person can't be themselves or even remove individualism as a whole. I agree that "self" is important and that individual expression and opinions matter and should matter. What I am mainly focusing on is the aspects of individualism that yields itself to value the success of the individual above all else. That there can only be one winner. That being on top of the mountain alone is a better view and better accomplishment than being there with others. Basically it's the motivation for success that I am emphasizing and how that either helps the collective many or just the individual. Does that make sense?

So for example in the United States we push kids at a young age want to be the best, to want to defeat that other person. The victory is most important, the status that comes with that victory is what matters. Our current culture rewards that mindset and even encourages it in nearly all aspects of life here. Success is determined based off of the money you have, the salary you get, the car you drive, the title at work that you have, the amount wins and trophies that you have. For me, personally, I don't find that to be a rewarding view of life or how we as a culture and society should view success or be teaching as success. Do your best, but also be supportive, be cooperative, show solidarity. Are you happy? Does that new material possession make you happier or would a better relationship with your neighbors actually be more rewarding and make you happier in the long term? When it comes to work and your job, do you want to be the best or do you want to simply like what you do? Liking what you do will bring more long term happiness and quality of life for you than trying to get to the top in my opinion, and in turn if society as a whole thought like that then perhaps it would create a more unified country, a happier country, and less stressed country.

This transitions into things like healthcare and education in my opinion. A society that that favors the winners and looks down on those that couldn't compete as well will have programs that and systems that will reflect that mindset. You get what you pay for basically. A society that views success as a team win will create systems that emphasize that because if a teammate struggles it can affect the team as a whole. You can either coach that teammate and help them get better or you can cut that person and give up on them. If the team is invested in the success of the team then everybody typically has the same goal and vision. If the country viewed healthcare for everybody as a way to invest in Americans then perhaps more people would be willing to want to try a little harder and be part of the team. But when you have millions of people who look at that as weakness. They look at this topic as "why do I need to help that person, they just need to work harder on their own" then sure, it won't work, because that person is about "i" not "we" in my opinion.

Ask yourself why we as a country will pull together for the common good in the case of emergencies or national crises, but yet all the days before and after that common good is labeled as something bad? We can come together to fight a war but not to help Americans with healthcare? It's odd to me.

 

[flacaltenn]

That's not the purpose of govt. Go back to school.

Government's purpose is to serve its people. If the people want change and to grant it the ability to provide certain services then it’s within its purpose in my opinion.

No it's not. What don't you have access to?

Im not really talking about access in the same way you are though, I’m talking about the costs and the process and how those affects access for millions of middle class people.

Sure you are. You want the money for power so your govt cronies decide access. Try breaking up the monopolies and enforcing laws you might find your "access" problem goes away

I’m not interested in power. I’m interested in a system that closes the gap between rich and poor. A system that everybody feels a connection with through a shared investment.

Closing that gap is NOT a money issue.. If you fixed it with massive redistribution one time TODAY -- it would back again tomorrow...

You need to ponder WHAT CAUSES poverty and "the gap" and focus on those issues.. And you'll find that "helping people" doesnt BEGIN with a check from Washington taken from you or me or a CEO..

It takes LIFE changes and "buy-ins" to "invest" in people who never prepared properly to EARN an income.. MAYBE that part is NOT their fault... I personally believe I could drive by all the fast food places, select a trainload of relatively young 30 somethings and with a modest budget -- get them degrees and jobs in WELL PAYING industries..

The govt SUCKS at that.. You have Biden telling miners "they should learn to code" and Bloomberg making fun of farmers saying HE could teach them to "grow seeds"... That's an ELITE MINDSET that betrays their intentions on "compassion" and problem solving when it comes to "helping people"..

ONE ON ONE personal counseling and repairing impaired educations is more a job for LOCAL volunteers and public/private ventures.... And THAT'S what's required.. Not simple money redistribution...

Have you ever HELPED a dysfunctional person Grace?? You don't want to be in their boat together in some kind of "equalized money" situation.,. You want to FIX things at the core of their issues and get THEM to buy in...

Money for NOTHING -- is just an 80s pop tune...