Here is what the progressive economic ideology boils down to:

[forkup]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

 

[forkup]

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society priorities the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

As you know, President Donald Trump is the first President to narrow the gap between the upper-income and the low-income worker. Obviously, you hated him having done that so you rallied to get him out of the office.

So glad to come across someone who knows what I know. But since I'm always someone who questions what I know I've decided to actually research my knowledge. Income Inequality - Inequality.org. Hmm I guess my knowledge of Trump being the first president to narrow the gap was in error. He was in office in 2018 right?
And in 2019? Income and Poverty in the United States: 2019

Care to state something else I know?

Inequality.org? Yeah, I'll bet they are a real moderate organization.

Why should anyone believe your propaganda?

I added the first link because they provide a graphical representation up until 2018. The second link is the US sensus bureau. They provide more detailed but less easy to navigate data.

But if you disagree feel free to dispute the data using your own sources. I will, unlike you dispute the data not the source of I find it at fault.

 

[Cellblock2429]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

/——/ Yeah, everyone is equally miserable and poor —- well except the ruling class.

 

[Juicey Omelette]

More bad pinko commie ideas (been tried before and failed), and moonbat pipe dreams from our proud Democrat Socialist Billy Boy...

Maybe this is Billy at the DSA meeting having a freak out about someone using gendered language?

 

[bripat9643]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

ROFL! You just proved that in addition to being a scumbag, you're also an idiot. First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism, and then you admit that my quote is the Marxist motto, and then you try to defend it.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

So, not only are you a lying Marxist, you're also a dumbass.

All Marxists are scumbags.

 

[dudmuck]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

ROFL! You just proved that in addition to being a scumbag, you're also an idiot. First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism, and then you admit that my quote is the Marxist motto, and then you try to defend it.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

So, not only are you a lying Marxist, you're also a dumbass.

All Marxists are scumbags.

hmm, not really. its described here.

... there is no completely neutral view of productivity possible; how productivity is defined depends on the values and interests people have. Thus, different social classes have different notions of productivity reflecting their own station in life, and giving rise to different notions of productive and unproductive labour.

 

[bripat9643]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

ROFL! You just proved that in addition to being a scumbag, you're also an idiot. First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism, and then you admit that my quote is the Marxist motto, and then you try to defend it.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

So, not only are you a lying Marxist, you're also a dumbass.

All Marxists are scumbags.

hmm, not really. its described here.

... there is no completely neutral view of productivity possible; how productivity is defined depends on the values and interests people have. Thus, different social classes have different notions of productivity reflecting their own station in life, and giving rise to different notions of productive and unproductive labour.

That describes nothing mentioned in this discussion.

 

[forkup]

I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'll see if I can remedy that.

First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism

No I didn't. I claimed you knew nothing about it

talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

and then you try to defend it.

No I didn't not only did I say I wasn't. I made it a point to explain exactly a few things (and there are more) that I simply disagree with.

I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

Doesn't it?
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"

you're also an idiot.

Maybe but at least I can read.

 

[bripat9643]

I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'll see if I can remedy that.

First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism

No I didn't. I claimed you knew nothing about it

talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

and then you try to defend it.

No I didn't not only did I say I wasn't. I made it a point to explain exactly a few things (and there are more) that I simply disagree with.

I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

Doesn't it?
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"

you're also an idiot.

Maybe but at least I can read.

Sorry, turd, but that doesn't support your claim.

 

[forkup]

I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'll see if I can remedy that.

First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism

No I didn't. I claimed you knew nothing about it

talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

and then you try to defend it.

No I didn't not only did I say I wasn't. I made it a point to explain exactly a few things (and there are more) that I simply disagree with.

I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

Doesn't it?
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"

you're also an idiot.

Maybe but at least I can read.

Sorry, turd, but that doesn't support your claim.

Oh, great retort. I'm utterly devastated.

There's a particularly apt idiom that applies here.
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

You brought not even a pencil.

 

[bripat9643]

I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'll see if I can remedy that.

First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism

No I didn't. I claimed you knew nothing about it

talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

and then you try to defend it.

No I didn't not only did I say I wasn't. I made it a point to explain exactly a few things (and there are more) that I simply disagree with.

I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

Doesn't it?
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"

you're also an idiot.

Maybe but at least I can read.

Sorry, turd, but that doesn't support your claim.

Oh, great retort. I'm utterly devastated.

There's a particularly apt idiom that applies here.
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

You brought not even a pencil.

You failed to disprove what I said. You didn't even try.

 

[forkup]

I think you have a serious reading comprehension problem. I'll see if I can remedy that.

First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism

No I didn't. I claimed you knew nothing about it

talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism.

and then you try to defend it.

No I didn't not only did I say I wasn't. I made it a point to explain exactly a few things (and there are more) that I simply disagree with.

I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

Doesn't it?
"In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly"

you're also an idiot.

Maybe but at least I can read.

Sorry, turd, but that doesn't support your claim.

Oh, great retort. I'm utterly devastated.

There's a particularly apt idiom that applies here.
Don't bring a knife to a gunfight.

You brought not even a pencil.

You failed to disprove what I said. You didn't even try.

Lol.. I'll bite what particular thing did you say that I didn't disprove? I'm getting bored though so better make it good.

 

[hadit]

Who is claiming it is for nothing? Paying taxes to fund services is not nothing. I'm European. My wife is American. I pay a tax rate that would make you blanch. On the other hand that tax rate gives me access to services that would require an American citizen to be an actual millionaire to afford.

I did not say that the Euro’s have to give up their socialist system and be like Americans

so please dont tell Americans that we should be more like you

I know it's uncomfortable to hear that the big socialist bogeyman is being implemented successfully throughout the world but you will have to deal.

You are making claims that are demonstrably false. And I'm more than happy to point out the flaws.

You made the choice to reply to an OP dealing with what the liberal economic policy actually is, not the caricature that is portrait by the right. I think my perspective is both useful in the discussion and relevant to the OP.

If Uncle Sam takes his military and goes home, how long do you think European countries will be able to afford their lavish government services? WWII was not very long ago, and trust between nations can die very quickly.

 

[dudmuck]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

ROFL! You just proved that in addition to being a scumbag, you're also an idiot. First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism, and then you admit that my quote is the Marxist motto, and then you try to defend it.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

So, not only are you a lying Marxist, you're also a dumbass.

All Marxists are scumbags.

hmm, not really. its described here.

... there is no completely neutral view of productivity possible; how productivity is defined depends on the values and interests people have. Thus, different social classes have different notions of productivity reflecting their own station in life, and giving rise to different notions of productive and unproductive labour.

That describes nothing mentioned in this discussion.

of course it does, you were talking about marx on productivity.

 

[Agit8r]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

Far from being communism, such proposals could best be described as distributism.

 

[forkup]

Who is claiming it is for nothing? Paying taxes to fund services is not nothing. I'm European. My wife is American. I pay a tax rate that would make you blanch. On the other hand that tax rate gives me access to services that would require an American citizen to be an actual millionaire to afford.

I did not say that the Euro’s have to give up their socialist system and be like Americans

so please dont tell Americans that we should be more like you

I know it's uncomfortable to hear that the big socialist bogeyman is being implemented successfully throughout the world but you will have to deal.

You are making claims that are demonstrably false. And I'm more than happy to point out the flaws.

You made the choice to reply to an OP dealing with what the liberal economic policy actually is, not the caricature that is portrait by the right. I think my perspective is both useful in the discussion and relevant to the OP.

If Uncle Sam takes his military and goes home, how long do you think European countries will be able to afford their lavish government services? WWII was not very long ago, and trust between nations can die very quickly.

WWII was indeed not that long ago. But it prompted something that hasn't existed ever on the continent. A unified body of governance. I will admit the resurgence of nationalist movements across the world and in Europe, in particular, do worry me. But as I see it, a European internal war is unlikely. At the moment I consider the US as a greater threat to European peace (although still highly unlikely).

Now just to head off where I think you are going. Yes, Europe should spend more on defense. But I think you overestimate the impact of the defense budget on the overall budget of a country. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2018/621784/IPOL_BRI(2018)621784_EN.pdf The EU averages around 1.2 percent of GDP on defense, (atrociously low). The US in comparison spends 3.4 in 2019 The Biggest Military Budgets As A Share Of GDP In 2019 [Infographic]
Great, you do better.

Now let's put this in perspective. The US spends 16.9 percent of GDP on healthcare alone. Health expenditure as share of GDP by country | Statista
The EU 10. Meaning that there are way bigger ticket items of expenditure and I've never heard a Republican ask if it was a good idea to spend 7 percent of GDP more in order to keep a for-profit healthcare system. I suspect the EU will survive a US withdrawal of troops, as I suspect you think the US will survive paying a 7 percent higher price for healthcare.

 

[Brain357]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

Something for nothing, huh?

the liberal dream that never grows old

free tuition for students who would rather get high than study?

then after they leave college pay them $15 an hour to be a soda jerk at Starbucks?

how can a single mom with 3 children by 3 different men stay above the poverty level at such a low wage?

oh yeah, they get free babysitters till the kids are old enough to smoke dope and have kids of their own.

that sounds like a plan to me

Repubs love something for nothing. You got
your increased military spending, how much your taxes go up?

 

[Brain357]

It's a tradeoff. Hence me objecting to your statement we are claiming something for nothing is possible.

So you are saying that you are a rich person and you are better off after having your wealth tsken than you were by keeping it?

I dont believe that.

but we come from two different places

the Old World and the New

yours a feudal society of kings and serfs

And me the offspring of free men

Men and women who braved the danger and hardship of conquoring a new land because they wanted a better life

and you?

the residue that the adventurous people left behind

Both condescending and putting up strawmen? Kudos!

First I didn't say rich people are better of if they have their wealth taken. I said explicitly that they weren't.

What I did say was that we as a society pit the prioritiy in the needs of those that are the weakest by demanding from the strongest that they contribute a proportionally higher part of their income.

To make it less abstract. We find it more important that a poor person can still enjoy good health and is capable of giving his children the highest level of education that their intellect can sustain. Than we find it important that a wealthy person can take their fourth vacation abroad.

To be clear we have rich people and we have poor people but there is simply a smaller gap between them.

In other words "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.'

thanks for revealing your Marxist cloven hoof, scumbag.

Thanks for calling me a scumbag.

I've been here for 4 years and in that time talking to people like you has made it clear that none of you know, or even worse, care to know, the distinctions between Marxism, Socialism, or Communism. As such trying to sling Marxist at me is kind of like a 3-year-old yelling fuck. Like a 3-year-old you have no comprehension of the term. Unlike a 3-year-old and in the full knowledge that you don't really care I'll give you the reason why I'm not a Marxist.

Jeder nach seinen Fähigkeiten, jedem nach seinen Bedürfnissen ( From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.) Is the concept that once a fully developed Communist society is established the production would skyrocket to the extent that no person would ever want for anything. I don't believe that. For one thing, human nature will always want more. Greed is a real thing for almost everybody. For another eliminating wants most likely would take any need to achieve away ultimately collapsing society.

What Social Democracies do is trying to give everybody the same starting place and try to ensure that everybody will always have their BASIC needs fulfilled.

ROFL! You just proved that in addition to being a scumbag, you're also an idiot. First you claim I don't know anything about Marxism, and then you admit that my quote is the Marxist motto, and then you try to defend it.

Marxism doesn't say that converting to socialism will increase productivity. It says that capitalism will increase productivity to the point that you won't need it anymore and then society can concentrate on distributing production.

So, not only are you a lying Marxist, you're also a dumbass.

All Marxists are scumbags.

If only we had good capitalism.

 

[sparky]

It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian.

i'm with you so far Billy



~S~

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

No one working 40 hours a week should be living in poverty. Any economic policy should be focused on alleviating this.

None of this has anything to do with the goal of people just living on the government tit or being paid the same wage regardless of work. It’s about making a capitalistic economy more egalitarian. This is done by limiting - not ELIMINATING - the extremes of poverty and wealth. Republicans can’t seem to grasp the basic, obvious nuance between this and communism for some bizarre reason.

Here are some examples of solutions:

1) Investing in education
2) Investing in infrastructure
3) Raising the minimum wage
4) Socialized healthcare
5) Socialized childcare

And no, I don’t expect Biden to accomplish the objectives above.

https://www.usnews.com/news/elections/articles/2020-07-08/biden-sanders-release-progressive-unity-platform-for-democratic-party?context=amp

Who pays for your fairy tale?

And do the Unicorns eat the rainbows and poop skittles?