‘Socialism Does Not Work’: President Trump Supporter Confronts Crazy Bernie At Iowa Campaign Event

[Harpy Eagle]

My brother told me that socialism doesn't work, as well. We had that conversation as I was taking him to his Medicare doctor appointment.

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

 

[Blues Man]

My brother told me that socialism doesn't work, as well. We had that conversation as I was taking him to his Medicare doctor appointment.

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

 

[Harpy Eagle]

My brother told me that socialism doesn't work, as well. We had that conversation as I was taking him to his Medicare doctor appointment.

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Yet it happens every day by the politicians and pundits on the right as they talk about the Dems.

 

[Blues Man]

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Yet it happens every day by the politicians and pundits on the right as they talk about the Dems.

Yes and no one knows any better so they just parrot the word even though they have no clue what it means

 

[anynameyouwish]

"socialism eventually fails"

sigh.....

the happiest countries in the world are SOCIAL democracies;

Norway, Finland, Denmark,


In fact....here are the top 20 (note the US position)

1

Finland 7.769 1.340 1.587 0.986 0.596 0.153 0.393
2

Denmark 7.600 1.383 1.573 0.996 0.592 0.252 0.410
3

Norway 7.554 1.488 1.582 1.028 0.603 0.271 0.341
4

Iceland 7.494 1.380 1.624 1.026 0.591 0.354 0.118
5

Netherlands 7.488 1.396 1.522 0.999 0.557 0.322 0.298
6

Switzerland 7.480 1.452 1.526 1.052 0.572 0.263 0.343
7

Sweden 7.343 1.387 1.487 1.009 0.574 0.267 0.373
8

New Zealand 7.307 1.303 1.557 1.026 0.585 0.330 0.380
9

Canada 7.278 1.365 1.505 1.039 0.584 0.285 0.308
10

Austria 7.246 1.376 1.475 1.016 0.532 0.244 0.226
11

Australia 7.228 1.372 1.548 1.036 0.557 0.332 0.290
12

Costa Rica 7.167 1.034 1.441 0.963 0.558 0.144 0.093
13

Israel 7.139 1.276 1.455 1.029 0.371 0.261 0.082
14

Luxembourg 7.090 1.609 1.479 1.012 0.526 0.194 0.316
15

United Kingdom 7.054 1.333 1.538 0.996 0.450 0.348 0.278
16

Ireland 7.021 1.499 1.553 0.999 0.516 0.298 0.310
17

Germany 6.985 1.373 1.454 0.987 0.495 0.261 0.265
18

Belgium 6.923 1.356 1.504 0.986 0.473 0.160 0.210
19

United States 6.892 1.433 1.457 0.874 0.454 0.280 0.128
20

Czech Republic

YOU keep FORCING US to discuss Venezuala and Cuba....

but we don't want to be like those countries....

we don't want COMMUNIST socialism

We want everything we have NOW that YOU DO NOT COMPLAIN ABOUT (police, military, fire dept , roads, social security)
plus we'd like AFFORDABLE (not FREE not FREE not FREE NOT FKN FREE) AFFORDABLE Healthcare and Education.

like Norway
and Finland


NOT like Venezuela

Why can't you understand that?

what the fuk is wrong with you that you can't talk about Norway or Finland but MUST ONLY DISCUSS the evils of Venezuela?

Why do you keep claiming that those countries are socialist, when even those country deny they are socialist?

Why do your fellow travellers and the OP keep claiming that Bernie Sanders is a "socialist" when he self-describes as a Democratic Socialist?

See how that works?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Because there is zero difference between the two.

You are asking "Why are you calling bright red, red?" Um... because putting it near a light, doesn't change the color. Red, is red, whether it is bright, dark, neon, or any other flavor of red.

Socialism, is still socialism, whether the person implementing it was given authority by vote, or by birth.
See how that works?

Failing to realize the flaw of your own argument: Priceless.

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

 

[sparky]

i love this guy!

another delusional Trump cheerleader?

~S~

 

[Blues Man]

Why do you keep claiming that those countries are socialist, when even those country deny they are socialist?

Why do your fellow travellers and the OP keep claiming that Bernie Sanders is a "socialist" when he self-describes as a Democratic Socialist?

See how that works?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Because there is zero difference between the two.

You are asking "Why are you calling bright red, red?" Um... because putting it near a light, doesn't change the color. Red, is red, whether it is bright, dark, neon, or any other flavor of red.

Socialism, is still socialism, whether the person implementing it was given authority by vote, or by birth.
See how that works?

Failing to realize the flaw of your own argument: Priceless.

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

 

[Vandalshandle]

Why do your fellow travellers and the OP keep claiming that Bernie Sanders is a "socialist" when he self-describes as a Democratic Socialist?

See how that works?

Having it both ways: Priceless.

Because there is zero difference between the two.

You are asking "Why are you calling bright red, red?" Um... because putting it near a light, doesn't change the color. Red, is red, whether it is bright, dark, neon, or any other flavor of red.

Socialism, is still socialism, whether the person implementing it was given authority by vote, or by birth.
See how that works?

Failing to realize the flaw of your own argument: Priceless.

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

 

[Blues Man]

Because there is zero difference between the two.

You are asking "Why are you calling bright red, red?" Um... because putting it near a light, doesn't change the color. Red, is red, whether it is bright, dark, neon, or any other flavor of red.

Socialism, is still socialism, whether the person implementing it was given authority by vote, or by birth.
See how that works?

Failing to realize the flaw of your own argument: Priceless.

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

So what if they don't?

It's their money.

The government is not there to make sure you save your money.

If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%

Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway

Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.

 

[Pogo]

My brother told me that socialism doesn't work, as well. We had that conversation as I was taking him to his Medicare doctor appointment.

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

 

[Pogo]

Because there is zero difference between the two.

You are asking "Why are you calling bright red, red?" Um... because putting it near a light, doesn't change the color. Red, is red, whether it is bright, dark, neon, or any other flavor of red.

Socialism, is still socialism, whether the person implementing it was given authority by vote, or by birth.
See how that works?

Failing to realize the flaw of your own argument: Priceless.

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

--- which is what used to happen, and which these programs were designed to address in a changing world where individuality usurped the nuclear family that took care of its own.

Ironically these same "sovereign citizen" naysayers will now be off to the nearest thread whining about homeless in San Francisco, and the irony will never dawn on them.

 

[Blues Man]

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

 

[anynameyouwish]

It ain't my fallacy -- it's yours. Called "Double Standard". Obviously you have no clue what that means; it means you want to apply a distinction to your own argument but then dismiss the same distinction in somebody else's. And that's just plain dishonest.

If there were 'zero difference', the proper adjective would be nonfunctiona, wouldn't it. That qualifier is there for a reason, yet you would dismiss that reason as inconvenient to your partisan hacksmanship.

Is there "zero difference" between a tire rack and a gun rack? Hey, a rack's a rack, right?
Traffic cone - ice cream cone. Same thing right? Ever see a carpenter put a nail in a governing board?

Your argument is dishonest. Now you're trying to avoid admitting it, which is also dishonest.

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

So what if they don't?

It's their money.

The government is not there to make sure you save your money.

If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%

Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway

Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.

"Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you."

but some people don't make enough to invest.

when those people are old and can't work much then they will rely on SS.

taking care of OLD folks is a very OLD and CONSERVATIVE tradition.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.

By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.

 

[Blues Man]

No, you just don't want to believe it.

There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism.

Democratic has effects nothing in relation to how socialism effects the country.

People voted for Hugo Chavez, and people largely didn't vote for Kim Jong-un, nor Castro.

But the effects Socialism, as one would expect who understands that voting for stupid doesn't magically make stupid smart.... have been identical between those countries. All have declined, all have rampant poverty, all have shortages of basic needs, all have resulted in hundreds, if not millions, fleeing to other countries that do not engage in socialism.

Consistently, socialism has negative consequences, and the results are predictable, and unavoidable.

Never once, has voting on it in so called "democratic socialism" made any difference in the long term consequences.

The only one who is dishonest here, is you. There is nothing to admit to... except perhaps that I admit I've been mocking you using the truth.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

So what if they don't?

It's their money.

The government is not there to make sure you save your money.

If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%

Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway

Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.

"Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you."

but some people don't make enough to invest.

when those people are old and can't work much then they will rely on SS.

taking care of OLD folks is a very OLD and CONSERVATIVE tradition.

Yes they do

Everyone is already having money taken from their paychecks every week and their employer matches that amount and sends it in to the government

If people had that money (15%) of their pay and were able to save it in an account they owned and controlled they would be able to retire with more money than they could ever get from social security

 

[Blues Man]

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.

By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.

Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.


Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.

Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan

Welfare programs are not socialism either

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.

By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.

Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.


Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.

Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan

Welfare programs are not socialism either

How about subsides to farmers to help control what they grow and sell and the prices they receive?

 

[anynameyouwish]

You need to look up the definition of socialism

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk

Baby Bush signed a law that added RX benefits to Medicare, even though it increased the Medicare liability by 12%, and did not include a dime's worth of added revenue. In short, it was a gift from the government. If that isn't socialism, I don't know what is.

Learn to use a dictionary

Based upon the dictionary definition of Socialism...which countries in the world today meet that definition?

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Yet it happens every day by the politicians and pundits on the right as they talk about the Dems.

"There is no difference between Democratic socialism, and socialism."

so Norway and Denmark are just as evil as Venezuela?

The US (because of roads and fire dept and police and military and social security) is JUST AS EVIL as china?


at this point

YOU have proven you are deranged.

and if we catch you driving on our socialist roads you will be deported (using our socialist tax dollars) to a NON socialist country of your choice.

which, by the way, because of roads and police and fire departments in those countries, do NOT exist.

Social Security and Medicare are not socialism

The former is a riced retirement savings plan the latter is a forced insurance plan

And both are far inferior to what a person could have if they actually had control over what amounts to 15% of their lifetime salary

...and we all know that everybody would wisely invest that 15% in guaranteed no loss portfolios, and that no one would squander it, and end up as charity cases, or worse, in his old age.

So what if they don't?

It's their money.

The government is not there to make sure you save your money.

If you want a guaranteed return then put your money in CDs and get 2%

Personally I would put that money in a very conservative portfolio and I would still end up with a couple million dollar nest egg in addition to what I would be saving anayway

Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you.

"Do the math and tell me how great SS is as compared to what a balanced investing strategy would have gotten you."

but some people don't make enough to invest.

when those people are old and can't work much then they will rely on SS.

taking care of OLD folks is a very OLD and CONSERVATIVE tradition.

Yes they do

Everyone is already having money taken from their paychecks every week and their employer matches that amount and sends it in to the government

If people had that money (15%) of their pay and were able to save it in an account they owned and controlled they would be able to retire with more money than they could ever get from social security

ok

I concede your good point but still contend that the 15% more that poor people would get back probably wouldn't be invested but, rather, used for coats and shoes and food.

But you are correct. It COULD be used for investing.

 

[Blues Man]

Don't know don't care

But I do know that calling every government program socialism is incorrect by definition

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.

By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.

Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.


Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.

Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan

Welfare programs are not socialism either

How about subsides to farmers to help control what they grow and sell and the prices they receive?

Unless the government owns the farm no

Government interference in the economy is not socialism

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ironically this ** is the definition of Cherrypicking.

Once you Cherrypick enough "exceptions" for your term, you have no term at all so you can just fling it like so many turds.
It no longer has any meaning.

That's why it's not an argument.

I was asked a question that is irrelevant to the fact that you people are using the word socialism incorrectly.

Tell me what does the number of countries practicing socialism by the definition matter?

It matters because as with many words, it's use is no longer confined strictly to the dictionary definition.

By the strict dictionary definition there are no socialist countries and never have been any.

Until the definition changes it doesn't matter.


Fire departments. police departments, social security, medicare are not socialism and never have been.

Social security is a forced pension plan
Medicare is a forced insurance plan

Welfare programs are not socialism either

How about subsides to farmers to help control what they grow and sell and the prices they receive?

Unless the government owns the farm no

Government interference in the economy is not socialism

So, what you are basically saying is that nobody should ever talk about socialism ever since it does not exist and never has.