Minn Democrat Chair proudly proclaims they are the party of Democratic Socialists

[j-mac]

Socialism is about replacing the free market with government. The want to replace economic struggle with political struggle.

Absolutely, both can be true at the same time.

 

[Winston]

Socialism is about redistribution of wealth. People pay taxes and the government then gives it to others, whether they have contributed toward the cost of the service or not. That’s a library, a public school, food stamps, or any form of “universal basic income.” These are often termed “transfer payments.” The government takes money from individuals and corporations and gives it those it wants to support—or get votes from. This is, of course, completely immoral and antithetical to the principles of a free and just society.

In a free society, citizens recognize that certain threats cannot be dealt with by individuals alone. The government’s first and only legitimate role is to safeguard the lives, rights, and property of its citizens. Citizens pay a little bit of tax—which should never be more than 10 percent of income—to fund a military to protect against invaders; police and prisons to capture and incarcerate criminals; and certain emergency services to protect against fire, floods, pandemics, or meteorite strikes. I will concede, though, that often even some of the emergency services could be better handled by private institutions.

The military, police, and justice systems should be completely public institutions. Why? Because fighting invaders or a necessary foreign war requires a national public effort. Only a united public effort can adequately defend a whole nation or territory from invasion or defeat a dangerous enemy abroad. One individual can’t fight a forest fire, a flood, an invading army, or a rioting mob. That requires a community effort. Free peoples have understood that concept since the beginning of time. It isn’t socialism. It’s a price free people willingly pay to stay free.

No Bernie, The Police And Fire Departments Are Not Socialism

By: Trevor Loudon | The Epoch Times Presidential hopeful Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) looks on during the second Democratic primary debate of the 2020 presidential campaign season hosted by NBC…

www.trevorloudon.com

You should not be conflating government spending with socialism. It displays either ignorance, lazy thinking, or wanton dishonesty.

Socialism has a real meaning, a real definition. It is when the government, otherwise, the people, own the means of production. Yes, the military, the police, and my favorite, the local volunteer fire department, they are all "owned" by the people. You can hem and haw all you want, rationalize, legitimize, those entities are all Socialist. Does everyone contribute to the cost of the local volunteer fire department? Well damn near everyone, at least around here, it is part of your property taxes, specific to the fire district you are in. It is also part of your car taxes, again, specific to the fire district you are in. But some people don't pay. Rent an apartment, have no vehicle, no, you are not contributing. Is the fire department going to show up when your apartment catches on fire, well sure. And yes, you can argue, the apartment owner is paying for it, but does the fire department loot the renters belongings before addressing the fire? That is what they did in the old days, the private fire departments. But no, they don't do that. Your idea that some emergency services could be handled by private institutions is laughable and I would challenge you to provide an example.

So you can see, you have no problems with Socialism when you believe it serves the better good. Mostly, protecting your sorry ass.

 

[Winston]

Absolutely, both can be true at the same time.

Socialism does not replace the free market. It is only a function of the supply side. In all Socialist Democracies, demand still is determined by the free market. And that, in the end, determines production. The reality is, sometimes that "free" market, it doesn't work so well. The most glaring example is health care.

In a true, well functioning free market, there is something that in the legal community is called "equal consideration". So Doc tells you that you have to take a pill or die. Maybe it is an insulin shot. Is there equal consideration there? The drug company, what do they have to lose, a bit of revenue, what does the patient have to lose, HIS LIFE. If that were a legal contract, it would not hold up in any court of the land. Why is it accepted here?

 

[dblack]

Socialism does not replace the free market.

Yeah. It does. For any service that's "socialized" the free market is replaced by government mandates. That's the whole point. Why would you deny that? Are you just parsing words to be "dodgy"?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

The truth is that Scandinavia is the model for Democratic Socialists and they are the happiest countries on the planet and doing very well economically. We could learn a lot from them.

Except they aren't democratic socialists and far as doing well economically, you should read up on Sweden in the 70s and 80s when they truly were closer to a socialist society before they became more free market. It was hardly a paradise.

 

[Winston]

Yeah. It does. For any service that's "socialized" the free market is replaced by government mandates. That's the whole point. Why would you deny that? Are you just parsing words to be "dodgy"?

Don't be stupid. How about you look up North Dakota Mill and Elevator. Did it replace the free market. I mean do you eat bread? Who owns it, the people of North Dakota. Oil from Alaska, damn, who owns that, the people of Alaska and they get a check every year, did that replace the free market? I mean impress my ass and come up with an adequate rebuttal, or step the hell out.

 

[j-mac]

Socialism does not replace the free market. It is only a function of the supply side. In all Socialist Democracies, demand still is determined by the free market. And that, in the end, determines production. The reality is, sometimes that "free" market, it doesn't work so well. The most glaring example is health care.

The U.S. already has too many costly socialist entitlements.​

Socialism is a series of entitlements that cost the American public a considerable amount of money. Estimates for 2018 put the cost of Democratic Socialist proposals, including social security expansion, free college, paid family leave, and Medicare for all, at $42.5 trillion over ten years. In 2017 the federal government spent about $2.7 trillion on entitlements, including social security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. If new entitlements cost $4.2 more per year, that’s a 157% increase in government spending for handouts. [24][25]


To raise money to pay for the entitlements, taxes are going to have to be raised. The socialists propose a wealth tax, but 60% of registered voters were not in favor of a wealth tax if it applied to them (if they won the lottery, for example). [26]

Comment: This would never work in the United States. In order for it to have even a chance, private property rights would be gone.

The job of the U.S. government is to promote equal opportunity, not promise equal results.​

As the Dallas Federal Reserve explains, “Free enterprise means men and women have the opportunity to own economic resources, such as land, minerals, manufacturing plants and computers, and to use those tools to create goods and services for sale….Others have no intention of starting a business. If they choose, they can offer their labor, another economic resource, for wages and salaries….By allowing people to pursue their own interests, a free enterprise system can produce phenomenal results. Running shoes, walking shoes, mint toothpaste, gel toothpaste, skim milk, chocolate milk, cellular phones and BlackBerrys are just a few of the millions of products created as a result of economic freedom.”[31]

Comment: So, you want a country that rights are abolished, and the government tells you what you’ll have or not have. Socialism provides no opportunity to advance, therefore why even try?

When the government allows individuals to pursue what is best for them without interference, individuals prosper, the country enjoys “an average per capita GDP roughly six times greater than those with lower levels of economic freedom, as well as higher life expectancy, political and civil liberties, gender equality, and happiness.” In summary, “The diversity of economic freedom….helps us thrive both as individuals and as a society.”

In a true, well functioning free market, there is something that in the legal community is called "equal consideration". So Doc tells you that you have to take a pill or die. Maybe it is an insulin shot. Is there equal consideration there? The drug company, what do they have to lose, a bit of revenue, what does the patient have to lose, HIS LIFE. If that were a legal contract, it would not hold up in any court of the land. Why is it accepted here?

The American public supports a capitalist economy.​

The American public does not support socialism. In fact, 57% of Americans have favorable views of capitalism, while 36% have a unfavorable view of socialism; 84% of Americans support free enterprise, a cornerstone of capitalism, and 60% believe a free market model is the best economy. [27][28][29][33][35]


Capitalism is the best fit for the American entrepreneurial spirit. As Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, explains, “Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.” [30]

Comment: Let that sink in. Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism destroys wealth. Capitalism works, Socialism does not. It’s as simple as that.

American Socialism | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Democracy, & American Politics | Britannica

Should the United States become socialist? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

www.britannica.com

 

[alang1216]

Except they aren't democratic socialists and far as doing well economically, you should read up on Sweden in the 70s and 80s when they truly were closer to a socialist society before they became more free market. It was hardly a paradise.

A rose by any other name... Whatever the proper terminology, Sweden TODAY is the model for Democratic Socialists, like Bernie and AOC, TODAY.

 

[Winston]

The U.S. already has too many costly socialist entitlements.​

Socialism is a series of entitlements that cost the American public a considerable amount of money. Estimates for 2018 put the cost of Democratic Socialist proposals, including social security expansion, free college, paid family leave, and Medicare for all, at $42.5 trillion over ten years. In 2017 the federal government spent about $2.7 trillion on entitlements, including social security, Medicare, and unemployment insurance. If new entitlements cost $4.2 more per year, that’s a 157% increase in government spending for handouts. [24][25]


To raise money to pay for the entitlements, taxes are going to have to be raised. The socialists propose a wealth tax, but 60% of registered voters were not in favor of a wealth tax if it applied to them (if they won the lottery, for example). [26]

Comment: This would never work in the United States. In order for it to have even a chance, private property rights would be gone.

The job of the U.S. government is to promote equal opportunity, not promise equal results.​

As the Dallas Federal Reserve explains, “Free enterprise means men and women have the opportunity to own economic resources, such as land, minerals, manufacturing plants and computers, and to use those tools to create goods and services for sale….Others have no intention of starting a business. If they choose, they can offer their labor, another economic resource, for wages and salaries….By allowing people to pursue their own interests, a free enterprise system can produce phenomenal results. Running shoes, walking shoes, mint toothpaste, gel toothpaste, skim milk, chocolate milk, cellular phones and BlackBerrys are just a few of the millions of products created as a result of economic freedom.”[31]

Comment: So, you want a country that rights are abolished, and the government tells you what you’ll have or not have. Socialism provides no opportunity to advance, therefore why even try?

When the government allows individuals to pursue what is best for them without interference, individuals prosper, the country enjoys “an average per capita GDP roughly six times greater than those with lower levels of economic freedom, as well as higher life expectancy, political and civil liberties, gender equality, and happiness.” In summary, “The diversity of economic freedom….helps us thrive both as individuals and as a society.”

The American public supports a capitalist economy.​

The American public does not support socialism. In fact, 57% of Americans have favorable views of capitalism, while 36% have a unfavorable view of socialism; 84% of Americans support free enterprise, a cornerstone of capitalism, and 60% believe a free market model is the best economy. [27][28][29][33][35]


Capitalism is the best fit for the American entrepreneurial spirit. As Mark J. Perry, scholar at the American Enterprise Institute and professor of economics and finance at the University of Michigan, explains, “Capitalism will play a major role in the global revival of liberty and prosperity because it nurtures the human spirit, inspires human creativity, and promotes the spirit of enterprise. By providing a powerful system of incentives that promote thrift, hard work, and efficiency, capitalism creates wealth. The main difference between capitalism and socialism is this: Capitalism works.” [30]

Comment: Let that sink in. Capitalism creates wealth, Socialism destroys wealth. Capitalism works, Socialism does not. It’s as simple as that.

American Socialism | Pros, Cons, Debate, Arguments, Democracy, & American Politics | Britannica

Should the United States become socialist? Learn the pros and cons of the debate.

www.britannica.com

In your cost analysis you fail to look at the benefits. Take the Medicare for all proposal, 42 trillion over the next decade. SOLD, I mean that is cheap. In 2023 total health care spending in the US was right at 4.9 trillion. That is one year.

And the claim that the US already spends too much on Social welfare programs melts when faced with other countries in the OECD. The US spends about 18% of GDP on social welfare programs. France is at the top, spending over 30% of GDP on social welfare programs. Have private property rights went away in France?

List of countries by social welfare spending - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Then you go on that tired claim about promising equal results. It is a straw man specifically designed to get you to forget about the first part, "Promote equal opportunity". Do we have that in the United States? No, of course we don't. The most glaring example is our public education system and how we fund the bulk of it, through a wealth tax, ie, property taxes. Obviously, a child in the inner city, family living in poverty and attending an underfunded school with the roof leaking, ten year old textbooks, and little media available does not have the same OPPORTUNITY as the kid from a wealthy family, also attending a public school, that provides laptops to all students, a sparkling new building with all the bells and whistles, and a modern media center.

I mean I read something long ago and it is indicative of the entire problem. A child, born in the lowest quintile of income but scoring in the highest quintile in standardized tests almost has the same chance of graduating from college as someone born in the highest quintile of income and scoring in the bottom quintile on those standardized tests. That has to be fixed. It is costing us so much in opportunity costs.

But the thing is, that is the way many of the wealthy feel it should be. For some reason they feel they need to be protected from the poor. For some reason they feel they, and their offspring, somehow deserve what they inherited. I mean you have heard the saying, "Born on third base", and it is accurate. Trump was born on third base, got home on a balk, and he continually dances around like he hit a walk off homer. I mean I would have said got home on a sacrifice fly but his fat ass would have been pegged at the plate with a relay throw.

Finally, I want you to examine tax expenditures. Like the whole cost analysis, you only see the costs, you don't see the benefit. And when anyone from the right evaluates the financing of social programs they only look at the money going into the Treasury, they ignore tax expenditures, the cost of money that DOESN'T go into to the Treasury that otherwise would have. And it is that same reason, who benefits from the vast majority of tax expenditures? Why it is the wealthy and corporations.

 

[j-mac]

In your cost analysis you fail to look at the benefits. Take the Medicare for all proposal, 42 trillion over the next decade. SOLD, I mean that is cheap. In 2023 total health care spending in the US was right at 4.9 trillion. That is one year.

And, using your numbers Medicare for all would be 4.2 trillion per year. Plus we know that Medicare doesn’t cover everything alone. You have to have supplemental coverage, therefore making your proposal more costly.

And the claim that the US already spends too much on Social welfare programs melts when faced with other countries in the OECD. The US spends about 18% of GDP on social welfare programs. France is at the top, spending over 30% of GDP on social welfare programs. Have private property rights went away in France?

List of countries by social welfare spending - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

We don’t base what we in America should be doing, on what France, or any other nation does. If you believe France has a better standard, go live there.

Then you go on that tired claim about promising equal results. It is a straw man specifically designed to get you to forget about the first part, "Promote equal opportunity". Do we have that in the United States? No, of course we don't. The most glaring example is our public education system and how we fund the bulk of it, through a wealth tax, ie, property taxes. Obviously, a child in the inner city, family living in poverty and attending an underfunded school with the roof leaking, ten year old textbooks, and little media available does not have the same OPPORTUNITY as the kid from a wealthy family, also attending a public school, that provides laptops to all students, a sparkling new building with all the bells and whistles, and a modern media center.

First off, I never said anything about “equal outcomes”. That’s your side of the argument. It’s about opportunity. And that my friend is part of our society. You defeat your own argument here using the public education system. That is a government run system, that you agree is failing. So, why would anyone want that expanded?

I mean I read something long ago and it is indicative of the entire problem. A child, born in the lowest quintile of income but scoring in the highest quintile in standardized tests almost has the same chance of graduating from college as someone born in the highest quintile of income and scoring in the bottom quintile on those standardized tests. That has to be fixed. It is costing us so much in opportunity costs.

Nonsense. While the wealthy have the means to easier do what’s needed to succeed, that in no way locks out those that don’t. They just have to approach their goals in a different manner…But, the opportunity still exists.

But the thing is, that is the way many of the wealthy feel it should be. For some reason they feel they need to be protected from the poor. For some reason they feel they, and their offspring, somehow deserve what they inherited. I mean you have heard the saying, "Born on third base", and it is accurate. Trump was born on third base, got home on a balk, and he continually dances around like he hit a walk off homer. I mean I would have said got home on a sacrifice fly but his fat ass would have been pegged at the plate with a relay throw.

This is just your jealousy that you have to work harder…You have no idea what’s in the mind of another.

Finally, I want you to examine tax expenditures. Like the whole cost analysis, you only see the costs, you don't see the benefit. And when anyone from the right evaluates the financing of social programs they only look at the money going into the Treasury, they ignore tax expenditures, the cost of money that DOESN'T go into to the Treasury that otherwise would have. And it is that same reason, who benefits from the vast majority of tax expenditures? Why it is the wealthy and corporations.

Not at all. Again showing that you are clueless on what it takes to overcome the tax and regulations that business has to overcome.

Bottom line is that Bernie is selling a false utopia. If you truly want success, you have to earn it. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

 

[dblack]

Don't be stupid.

Yeah. Stow the equivocation. Your sales pitch is dishonest.

I mean impress my ass and come up with an adequate rebuttal, or step the hell out.

I see you're going full ****. Suck a tailpipe.

 

[Winston]

And, using your numbers Medicare for all would be 4.2 trillion per year. Plus we know that Medicare doesn’t cover everything alone. You have to have supplemental coverage, therefore making your proposal more costly.

Yes, 4.2 trillion per year, for ten years. We are spending a total of 5 trillion a year now. Supplemental coverage to Medicare? That is comical. It doesn't even cover the entire 20% that Medicare doesn't pay. I mean the old now outlawed F plan was best. You had no out of pocket costs outside of the durable medical equipment 20%. And now, the majority of Medicare Beneficiaries get their coverage through a privately administered Medicare Advantage plan, supplemental coverage is not available outside of a Hospital Indemnity plan. Besides, the most profitable health insurance product sold, Medicare Supplements.

We don’t base what we in America should be doing, on what France, or any other nation does. If you believe France has a better standard, go live there.

I am not saying that we need to emulate France, that was just a rebuttal of your claim that the US already spends too much on social welfare programs and to increase it would mean the loss of private property rights. Again, are there no private property rights in France?

First off, I never said anything about “equal outcomes”. That’s your side of the argument. It’s about opportunity. And that my friend is part of our society. You defeat your own argument here using the public education system. That is a government run system, that you agree is failing. So, why would anyone want that expanded?

A public system that is partitioned based on location. Can you not see how that is a problem. I mean I really have a hard time attempting to justify why one student is provided a laptop, goes to a sparkling new school with all the bells and whistles, is taught by a teacher that gets a nice fat stipend adding to her state set salary and yet another student goes to a school with mold growing on the walls, roofs leaking, and ten year old textbooks, taught by someone making just the state set salary.

Nonsense. While the wealthy have the means to easier do what’s needed to succeed, that in no way locks out those that don’t. They just have to approach their goals in a different manner…But, the opportunity still exists.

It still exists? I mean what part of equal opportunity do you not understand. I raised six kids and through most of that time, yes, my income was below the poverty level. I mean part of that was the plan. I found the cheapest home in the wealthiest school district. I made sure my kids always had a stay at home Mom. And, despite my income, the kids always had high-speed internet and the latest and greatest computers. I thought the internet, this new information technology, could help level the playing field. It helped, but it didn't come close.

Four of the six graduated from college. Two have Phd's. I won the lottery, literally. In fact, based on commonly accepted odds, I won it twice. One of the Phd's, research intensive position. World renowned, travels extensively, is asked often to be the keynote speaker at various technical conferences around the world. He is 30. Works with professors at Oxford, at MIT. In fact, currently the lead of a research project out of MIT, the next generation jet fighter, it will be his team that designs the turbines for the engine.

This is just your jealousy that you have to work harder…You have no idea what’s in the mind of another.

Not at all. Again showing that you are clueless on what it takes to overcome the tax and regulations that business has to overcome.

Bottom line is that Bernie is selling a false utopia. If you truly want success, you have to earn it. And there’s nothing wrong with that.

First of all, why should anyone have to work harder because they crawled out of the wrong womb? That makes no damn sense. That does not benefit society at all. It only benefits those that did climb out of the right womb. And yes, Trump is a screaming example of that. Had he grown up in poverty his sorry ass would be lucky to be flipping burgers at McDonalds. Success is not inherited. Rich kids are not smarter than poor kids. Rich kids don't work harder than poor kids. In fact, it is probably the exact opposite.

I mean the son, that I talk about, his summer job while in High School was field cropping, with a bunch of Mexicans, probably illegals, and paid cash under the table. He considers that to be one of the defining moments in his life. And that brings us to the jealousy part. I always find that absolutely laughable.

Those fields my son worked in, who you think owned them? Dad. Inherited hundreds of acres from his Dad and hundreds more from Mom's Dad. And while his Dad left him some of the finest farmland I have ever seen, Mom--foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains, you have any idea what that is worth? And how did they get it? Inherited it, and when did it first come in the family. From the ******* KING.

In the Granville district. Go ahead, look it up, learn some history. The stories are deep, you have no idea of the wealth my family has. I never had to strike a lick, except for one thing, for generations, it didn't work that way. I watched my Mother's siblings, like her father, just sitting on their ass waiting for the inheritance to come in. Her father, his future wife watched him on his sixteenth birthday, in his new Cadillac, spinning doughnuts in the field. "Who is that dumbass?", she asked.

Contrast that with Dad. His father was raised a migrant farm worker. No education, was actually illiterate. Standing about five foot nothing he was a force you did not want to mess with. The thing is, I was born out of the right womb but what my father taught me was, that is not a blessing, it is a responsibility. That seems to be a lesson lost with most of the wealthy today.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

A rose by any other name... Whatever the proper terminology, Sweden TODAY is the model for Democratic Socialists, like Bernie and AOC, TODAY.

Okay

Denmark’s prime minister says Bernie Sanders is wrong to call his country socialist

Vox is a general interest news site for the 21st century. Its mission: to help everyone understand our complicated world, so that we can all help shape it. In text, video and audio, our reporters explain politics, policy, world affairs, technology, culture, science, the climate crisis, money...

www.vox.com

 

[j-mac]

Yes, 4.2 trillion per year, for ten years. We are spending a total of 5 trillion a year now. Supplemental coverage to Medicare? That is comical. It doesn't even cover the entire 20% that Medicare doesn't pay. I mean the old now outlawed F plan was best. You had no out of pocket costs outside of the durable medical equipment 20%. And now, the majority of Medicare Beneficiaries get their coverage through a privately administered Medicare Advantage plan, supplemental coverage is not available outside of a Hospital Indemnity plan. Besides, the most profitable health insurance product sold, Medicare Supplements.

Ok I’m getting confused…you have problems with Medicare, but you want Medicare for all. You have public education but you want government more involved in production, yet you see they can’t run shit…it’s sounding to me like you just want free shit.

I am not saying that we need to emulate France, that was just a rebuttal of your claim that the US already spends too much on social welfare programs and to increase it would mean the loss of private property rights. Again, are there no private property rights in France?

A public system that is partitioned based on location. Can you not see how that is a problem. I mean I really have a hard time attempting to justify why one student is provided a laptop, goes to a sparkling new school with all the bells and whistles, is taught by a teacher that gets a nice fat stipend adding to her state set salary and yet another student goes to a school with mold growing on the walls, roofs leaking, and ten year old textbooks, taught by someone making just the state set salary.

It still exists? I mean what part of equal opportunity do you not understand. I raised six kids and through most of that time, yes, my income was below the poverty level. I mean part of that was the plan. I found the cheapest home in the wealthiest school district. I made sure my kids always had a stay at home Mom. And, despite my income, the kids always had high-speed internet and the latest and greatest computers. I thought the internet, this new information technology, could help level the playing field. It helped, but it didn't come close.

Four of the six graduated from college. Two have Phd's. I won the lottery, literally. In fact, based on commonly accepted odds, I won it twice. One of the Phd's, research intensive position. World renowned, travels extensively, is asked often to be the keynote speaker at various technical conferences around the world. He is 30. Works with professors at Oxford, at MIT. In fact, currently the lead of a research project out of MIT, the next generation jet fighter, it will be his team that designs the turbines for the engine.


First of all, why should anyone have to work harder because they crawled out of the wrong womb? That makes no damn sense. That does not benefit society at all. It only benefits those that did climb out of the right womb. And yes, Trump is a screaming example of that. Had he grown up in poverty his sorry ass would be lucky to be flipping burgers at McDonalds. Success is not inherited. Rich kids are not smarter than poor kids. Rich kids don't work harder than poor kids. In fact, it is probably the exact opposite.

I mean the son, that I talk about, his summer job while in High School was field cropping, with a bunch of Mexicans, probably illegals, and paid cash under the table. He considers that to be one of the defining moments in his life. And that brings us to the jealousy part. I always find that absolutely laughable.

Those fields my son worked in, who you think owned them? Dad. Inherited hundreds of acres from his Dad and hundreds more from Mom's Dad. And while his Dad left him some of the finest farmland I have ever seen, Mom--foothills of the Blue Ridge mountains, you have any idea what that is worth? And how did they get it? Inherited it, and when did it first come in the family. From the ******* KING.

In the Granville district. Go ahead, look it up, learn some history. The stories are deep, you have no idea of the wealth my family has. I never had to strike a lick, except for one thing, for generations, it didn't work that way. I watched my Mother's siblings, like her father, just sitting on their ass waiting for the inheritance to come in. Her father, his future wife watched him on his sixteenth birthday, in his new Cadillac, spinning doughnuts in the field. "Who is that dumbass?", she asked.

Contrast that with Dad. His father was raised a migrant farm worker. No education, was actually illiterate. Standing about five foot nothing he was a force you did not want to mess with. The thing is, I was born out of the right womb but what my father taught me was, that is not a blessing, it is a responsibility. That seems to be a lesson lost with most of the wealthy today.

As for your text wall here , I have one simple question why do you feel entitled to my labor? You seem like a fairly successful guy, yet you want to reach down so you can enjoy freebies…I say no.

 

[Winston]

Ok I’m getting confused…you have problems with Medicare, but you want Medicare for all. You have public education but you want government more involved in production, yet you see they can’t run shit…it’s sounding to me like you just want free shit.

I don't have a problem with Medicare. I have real problems with Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage has been plagued by fraud from the get-go. Over billing, misrepresentation of their beneficiaries health status, denial of coverage, slow pay, and in some cases, no pay to providers. Medicare is an outstanding platform in which the US can implement single payer health care. Medicare Advantage are administered by private companies. A clear example of the government getting better results than private companies. The VA health system another clear example, the government actually involved in production and consistently the VA system gets higher ratings than Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

And yes, the government can get involved in production and do it better than the private sector. Not in every area, but in some areas it is the best means of producing. Take North Dakota Mill and Elevator. Owned by the state, the largest flour mill in the country.

As for your text wall here , I have one simple question why do you feel entitled to my labor? You seem like a fairly successful guy, yet you want to reach down so you can enjoy freebies…I say no.

It is really pretty simple. Yes, I was born into wealth. But Dad, he saw both sides of the equation. The wealth came from my Mom's family. As I said, inherited, for generations, all the way back to well before the American Revolution. Thousands of acres of land, all passed down from generation to generation, each descendant getting an ever declining portion of that land. And almost all those generations were just like my Grandfather and his two sons. Drunks, laying around doing almost nothing, waiting for the death train to come rolling in to get theirs. My two uncles died before that death train came passing through. Died waiting. Grandmother, not born into wealth, did almost all the work, she kept on rolling.

Then, Dad's Dad. A real yellow dog Democrat. Raised a migrant farm worker. He clawed his way to the top, well, outside of all the land that passed across the poker table to him. Mostly from people like my maternal line. So Dad, he gave me and my siblings what we needed, but we got no privileges that are attached to wealth. We all had to pay for our college education, working, saving. Dad required it.

So, we got nothing once we grew up. And we took nothing for granted. I actually appreciated that and raised my kids the same way. Throughout their childhood I controlled my income to the point that I maximized the EITC. Self-employed, able to defer much of my income, that is what I did. No way in hell I was going to pay a marginal tax rate of 85%.

And yes, 85%, in some cases, it can exceed 100%. Once you get past that peak every additional dollar in income results in a cut in benefits, rather it is EBT or EITC. That cost is a tax no matter how you want to spin it. And that is a clear reflection on how sorry this nation's taxation system is, how biased it is toward the wealthy, and for no good reason. The top marginal income tax rate is not even 40%, and income subject to the FICA tax is capped. Capital gains are taxed lower than income.

I mean sit where I sit. Some dumbass Republican is talking about how a single Mom needs to pick herself up by her bootstraps and get off public assistance, and then, when she does, the flipping government only let's her keep about fifteen cents on the dollar. Meanwhile, he is crying like a stuck pig about wealthy people having to pay 40% of their income in taxes. I mean damn clueless.

 

[j-mac]

I don't have a problem with Medicare. I have real problems with Medicare Advantage. Medicare Advantage has been plagued by fraud from the get-go. Over billing, misrepresentation of their beneficiaries health status, denial of coverage, slow pay, and in some cases, no pay to providers. Medicare is an outstanding platform in which the US can implement single payer health care. Medicare Advantage are administered by private companies. A clear example of the government getting better results than private companies. The VA health system another clear example, the government actually involved in production and consistently the VA system gets higher ratings than Medicare or Medicare Advantage.

And yes, the government can get involved in production and do it better than the private sector. Not in every area, but in some areas it is the best means of producing. Take North Dakota Mill and Elevator. Owned by the state, the largest flour mill in the country.

It is really pretty simple. Yes, I was born into wealth. But Dad, he saw both sides of the equation. The wealth came from my Mom's family. As I said, inherited, for generations, all the way back to well before the American Revolution. Thousands of acres of land, all passed down from generation to generation, each descendant getting an ever declining portion of that land. And almost all those generations were just like my Grandfather and his two sons. Drunks, laying around doing almost nothing, waiting for the death train to come rolling in to get theirs. My two uncles died before that death train came passing through. Died waiting. Grandmother, not born into wealth, did almost all the work, she kept on rolling.

Then, Dad's Dad. A real yellow dog Democrat. Raised a migrant farm worker. He clawed his way to the top, well, outside of all the land that passed across the poker table to him. Mostly from people like my maternal line. So Dad, he gave me and my siblings what we needed, but we got no privileges that are attached to wealth. We all had to pay for our college education, working, saving. Dad required it.

So, we got nothing once we grew up. And we took nothing for granted. I actually appreciated that and raised my kids the same way. Throughout their childhood I controlled my income to the point that I maximized the EITC. Self-employed, able to defer much of my income, that is what I did. No way in hell I was going to pay a marginal tax rate of 85%.

And yes, 85%, in some cases, it can exceed 100%. Once you get past that peak every additional dollar in income results in a cut in benefits, rather it is EBT or EITC. That cost is a tax no matter how you want to spin it. And that is a clear reflection on how sorry this nation's taxation system is, how biased it is toward the wealthy, and for no good reason. The top marginal income tax rate is not even 40%, and income subject to the FICA tax is capped. Capital gains are taxed lower than income.

I mean sit where I sit. Some dumbass Republican is talking about how a single Mom needs to pick herself up by her bootstraps and get off public assistance, and then, when she does, the flipping government only let's her keep about fifteen cents on the dollar. Meanwhile, he is crying like a stuck pig about wealthy people having to pay 40% of their income in taxes. I mean damn clueless.

That’s a crock of shit…And yes, I have personal experience with it…My own daughter with two kids, and a deadbeat dad…She’s doing it on her own. Not handouts from government…So you don’t know what you’re talking about…

 

[Winston]

That’s a crock of shit…And yes, I have personal experience with it…My own daughter with two kids, and a deadbeat dad…She’s doing it on her own. Not handouts from government…So you don’t know what you’re talking about…

She doesn't get the EITC? Do tell.

 

[imawhosure]

View attachment 1138908


This is an incredible shock. Shocking in that this clown told the truth about who they really are.

And we agree! So now that they ADMIT who they are, instead of pretending, they need to make the case of why America should go SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST! Come on LEFTISTS, put up, or shut up!

 

[Midnight FM]

She doesn't get the EITC? Do tell.

And if she does, so what?

 

[DonGlock26]

And we agree! So now that they ADMIT who they are, instead of pretending, they need to make the case of why America should go SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST! Come on LEFTISTS, put up, or shut up!

They certainly are going hard Left.