Socialism is more popular than Project 2025

[GMCGeneral]

Two years from now I will admit if I am mistaken. Will you?

And you will be proven wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

PURE UNADULTERATED BULLSHIT

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ISSUED PAPER MONEY UNTIL THE "PROGRESSIVES" AKA THE SOCIALIST DEMON RATS (version 1) ENACTED THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT in 1913. FOR 136 YEARS THE FEDS HAD "FORGOTTEN" THAT THEY COULD ISSUE PAPER MONEY .

DURING THE CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION ALL THE FOUNDING FATHERS WERE OPPOSED TOM PAPER MONEY .

THE FEDERAL RESERVE IS THE FIFTH PLANK OF THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO

Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto

www.conservativeusa.net

1880 wasn't before 1913?

Are you using IM2 math?

DURR

 

[Contumacious]

THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT HAD NOT ISSUED PAPER MONEY UNTIL THE "PROGRESSIVES" AKA THE SOCIALIST DEMON RATS (version 1) ENACTED THE FEDERAL RESERVE ACT in 1913.

Liar.

View attachment 1079266

What is the difference between those TREASURY NOTES ABOVE and the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE below?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

What is the difference between those TREASURY NOTES ABOVE and the FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE below?


View attachment 1079274

Wait, I know this one!

The Treasury notes above were printed before 1913, because you were wrong!!!

 

[Hector12]

And you will be proven wrong.

That is not the answer to my question.

 

[BULLDOG]

LOLOLOLOLOL, good thread to show where the Left actually is, and how it thinks. And we thank you for your support-)

You'll note that the survey wasn't limited to those on the left. It was made up of voters from all parties.

 

[Contumacious]

Wait, I know this one!

The Treasury notes above were printed before 1913, because you were wrong!!!

Instead trying to prove that I was wrong - which is an impossibility -

You should have paid attention to the fact that those notes WERE REDEEMABLE IN GOLD OR SILVER, ie, they were "bearer notes payable on demand" - the paper notes were not money - but they could be converted to money - currency- which in the late 1800s meant GOLD AND SILVER

BUT
Paper money such as the Federal Reserve "Notes" are NOT

What Is Paper Money?​

Paper money is a country's official, paper currency that is circulated for the transactions involved in acquiring goods and services. The printing of paper money is typically regulated by a country's central bank or treasury in order to keep the flow of funds in line with monetary policy.


Paper money tends to be updated with new versions that contain security features and attempt to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to create illegal copies

 

[Monoculturalist]

Just like auto insurance, we are paying for those who don't have it.
How many countries in the world are waiting in line to adopt the US healthcare model?

I agree.

The difference between auto insurance and health insurance is that auto insurance isn't nearly as bureaucratic as health insurance. Auto insurance is relatively efficient and doesn't incur that much in terms of transactional costs. Rates are higher for auto insurance than they used to be, but a lot of that is due to a higher percentage of uninsured drivers on the road than before and light penalties for noncompliance. I would prefer we institute significant jail time for uninsured drivers, so that rates can come down some.

As for health insurance, it's quite different. A huge portion of the higher cost of healthcare in the US is tied to bureaucratic issues with health insurance. The red tape involved with billing is absurd, and various insurers are notorious for denying coverage over technicalities. This ultimately leads to doctors and hospitals listing very high rates that insurers will often only pay a small percentage of. There are other factors involved (like people getting service in ERs without paying for it), but taking insurance out of the equation for lower cost services (like routine visits) would help a lot in terms of lowering costs.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Most educated people supported Kamala Harris, not because she is wonderful, but because the man she ran against is proudly ignorant, impulsive, and dangerous.

When you break it down by sex, college-educated men barely favored Kamala. (49% vs. 48%)

Men and white people vote differently based on education

Over all, college graduates voted for Harris by 13 points more than they did Trump. But that gap was even starker for certain demographics.

www.insidehighered.com

Also, Trump made significant gains among various demographics in 2024 vs. 2020. A substantially higher percentage of Latinos and black men voted for Trump in 2024 than in 2020.

Overall, this seems to be a lot less about education and a lot more about men losing interest in the Democratic party. It's not surprising when you consider how fanatically feminist the left has become. Western society in general has shifted in an anti-male direction, despite depending on men to protect their societies.

The non-West has mostly avoided this ideological trap.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Do we really have freedom when we have to pass through gun detectors to enter schools, sporting events, amusement parks, etc.? You`re absolutely correct regarding healthcare. I don`t know of any other developed country where people tolerate health insurance companies. Insurance companies have never cured anyone of anything. We`re the suckers of the world.

That's a fair point about gun detectors. I think you should be allowed to be armed at various events. As for schools, teachers should be allowed to be armed.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Politeness was the rule in culture in the 1890's. Victorian age. Life reflected the arts of the year ime. Neoclassical virtues. Wasn't it Nilhilism And Dadaism that grew out of the early 1900's clearly a sign of disturbing trends in society. And most of all a lack of respect like what is happening now.

While I see the value in decorum within certain cultures (like Japan), that ship has sailed with the West. As soon as we entered the age of "tolerance" regardless of the drawbacks of personal choices or values, decorum has just become the selectively enforced cudgel that the left uses when it doesn't like a truth that the right reveals.

For example, Maxine Waters didn't give a shit about decorum when she encouraged her supporters to, shall we say, confront... conservatives. The media didn't care either.

As things currently stand, decorum is generally only expected out of the right while the left and media continually excuse any lack of it on their side. This is why Trump and others don't play by those rules. They were never intended to be fair.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Instead trying to prove that I was wrong - which is an impossibility -

You should have paid attention to the fact that those notes WERE REDEEMABLE IN GOLD OR SILVER, ie, they were "bearer notes payable on demand" - the paper notes were not money - but they could be converted to money - currency- which in the late 1800s meant GOLD AND SILVER

BUT
Paper money such as the Federal Reserve "Notes" are NOT

What Is Paper Money?​

Paper money is a country's official, paper currency that is circulated for the transactions involved in acquiring goods and services. The printing of paper money is typically regulated by a country's central bank or treasury in order to keep the flow of funds in line with monetary policy.


Paper money tends to be updated with new versions that contain security features and attempt to make it more difficult for counterfeiters to create illegal copies

Instead trying to prove that I was wrong - which is an impossibility -

You said the Constitution said no paper money, you were wrong.

You said no paper money before 1913, you were wrong.

You said you're never wrong, wrong again!

You should have paid attention to the fact that those notes WERE REDEEMABLE IN GOLD OR SILVER,

The paper money you said didn't exist was convertible? Ok. So what?

Paper money such as the Federal Reserve "Notes" are NOT

Ok. So what?

 

[Monoculturalist]

You have a childish understanding of what theft is.

Just because the state does it doesn't mean it's moral. It's simply legal.

 

[Monoculturalist]

But they aren't foreign drugs, they're US drugs.

Are you referring to drugs made here but sold in Canada? I thought we were discussing drugs made in Canada that could otherwise be sold here.

So, if the US company doesn't sell to Canada, at a low price, Canada will allow a Canadian company to steal the IP and make it in Canada.
I wonder why the drug company would be upset at the reimported cheap drug or the cheap, stolen generic being sold in the US?

This is not commonly used. As I mentioned before, this generally only applies to lifesaving drugs that have a shortage of supply.

US drug companies would create fewer new drugs here without any governmental intervention to protect their ability to make a profit.

In the short run, yes. In the long run, what would happen is that research would shift more international in orientation. The previous level of advancement would occur at that point, because the market for global research is tremendous.

It sure would, but not in a good way.

I'm not sure how cheaper prices for us and more expensive prices for them would be bad from an American perspective.

Of course, not spending billions on new drugs would result in cheaper drugs.

Again, I don't think you're grasping how research would just reorient toward various other countries. It's not like America is the only country who can do the research or would do the research. The only reason so much of it happens here is because of our government subsidizing Big Pharma's costs.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Here is the major problem in the USA. I pay small amounts for health care. However I happen to go to a super good health care provider in Idaho. I only pay minor fees and the service is excellent. But a huge chunk is paid for me by you guys. I hope you guys enjoy paying my bills for me.

I know what you mean. The variance in quality and cost for healthcare throughout this country can be extreme and is reflective of the competitiveness of a given local market. Where I'm at, it's an oligopoly, so quality and cost are not so good.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Are you referring to drugs made here but sold in Canada? I thought we were discussing drugs made in Canada that could otherwise be sold here.



This is not commonly used. As I mentioned before, this generally only applies to lifesaving drugs that have a shortage of supply.



In the short run, yes. In the long run, what would happen is that research would shift more international in orientation. The previous level of advancement would occur at that point, because the market for global research is tremendous.



I'm not sure how cheaper prices for us and more expensive prices for them would be bad from an American perspective.



Again, I don't think you're grasping how research would just reorient toward various other countries. It's not like America is the only country who can do the research or would do the research. The only reason so much of it happens here is because of our government subsidizing Big Pharma's costs.

Are you referring to drugs made here but sold in Canada?

Yes, those are the ones Americans want to re-import, violating the contract they were sold under.

I thought we were discussing drugs made in Canada that could otherwise be sold here.

I doubt there are any.

This is not commonly used.

Right, because they agree to sell cheaply to Canada instead, as long as they're used in Canada.

In the short run, yes. In the long run, what would happen is that research would shift more international in orientation.

Right, with much less expensive research and less innovation.

I'm not sure how cheaper prices for us and more expensive prices for them would be bad from an American perspective.

If you're satisfied with the current meds, you'll benefit.
If you want newer, better ones, you'll suffer.

Again, I don't think you're grasping how research would just reorient toward various other countries

Other countries are free to do that now. Why will they be more likely to do it after?
It's not like they'll be able to sell expensive meds in the US to recoup their costs.

The only reason so much of it happens here is because of our government subsidizing Big Pharma's costs.

Right, without earning back their costs here, it won't happen anywhere.
That's not really a subsidy.

 

[Monoculturalist]

Yes, those are the ones Americans want to re-import, violating the contract they were sold under.

That composes some of the ones that we'd like to buy, but a large portion of our drugs are actually made in India. We currently import about 40% of our prescription drugs from there, and they could provide a substantially higher portion of them at a lower price if the market was completely open.

Right, with much less expensive research and less innovation.

Again, you're only looking at the short run. Also research itself is generally cheaper to engage in within other countries (absent our subsidies) due to more favorable regulatory environments and cheaper labor.

If you're satisfied with the current meds, you'll benefit.
If you want newer, better ones, you'll suffer.

Again, not really. At worst, we might have a decade of less research and advancement.

Other countries are free to do that now. Why will they be more likely to do it after?
It's not like they'll be able to sell expensive meds in the US to recoup their costs.

As I mentioned above, research itself is cheaper in these other countries if you leave out our subsidization. Comparative advantage would push the research outward.

Right, without earning back their costs here, it won't happen anywhere.
That's not really a subsidy.

They make far beyond their costs here for multiple reasons. In recent times, it's come down to the government buying up extremely high amounts of vaccines. Granted, this was a worldwide thing a few years ago. It has set the precedent for many Western governments to approach avian flu similarly. While the stated intention is to keep people from getting sick, the real motive seems to be more profit-driven. So far, no flu shot provides immunity, and it's questionable that they even provide resistance. The COVID vaccines were the same.

A much better approach is to let the private sector do research completely unconnected to government funding, and for things like vaccines to be purchased by individuals and businesses rather than by the government.

 

[Contumacious]

Instead trying to prove that I was wrong - which is an impossibility -

You said the Constitution said no paper money, you were wrong.

You said no paper money before 1913, you were wrong.

You said you're never wrong, wrong again!

You should have paid attention to the fact that those notes WERE REDEEMABLE IN GOLD OR SILVER,

The paper money you said didn't exist was convertible? Ok. So what?

Paper money such as the Federal Reserve "Notes" are NOT

Ok. So what?

In the late 1800's paper money was NOT a currency


Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. In general, it's money in the form of paper and coins, usually issued by a government and generally accepted at its face value as a method of payment.

So what ?

If you cared for our Constitutional Form of Governement you would object to paper money - Joe BuyThem was able to finance his illegal immigration scheme and the war in Ukraine using fiat money

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That composes some of the ones that we'd like to buy, but a large portion of our drugs are actually made in India. We currently import about 40% of our prescription drugs from there, and they could provide a substantially higher portion of them at a lower price if the market was completely open.



Again, you're only looking at the short run. Also research itself is generally cheaper to engage in within other countries (absent our subsidies) due to more favorable regulatory environments and cheaper labor.



Again, not really. At worst, we might have a decade of less research and advancement.



As I mentioned above, research itself is cheaper in these other countries if you leave out our subsidization. Comparative advantage would push the research outward.



They make far beyond their costs here for multiple reasons. In recent times, it's come down to the government buying up extremely high amounts of vaccines. Granted, this was a worldwide thing a few years ago. It has set the precedent for many Western governments to approach avian flu similarly. While the stated intention is to keep people from getting sick, the real motive seems to be more profit-driven. So far, no flu shot provides immunity, and it's questionable that they even provide resistance. The COVID vaccines were the same.

A much better approach is to let the private sector do research completely unconnected to government funding, and for things like vaccines to be purchased by individuals and businesses rather than by the government.

We currently import about 40% of our prescription drugs from there

Generics. Those aren't the drugs people want to reimport from Canada.

Again, you're only looking at the short run.

It takes many years and hundreds of millions of dollars to get a new drug approved.

Also research itself is generally cheaper to engage in within other countries

Cheaper and much less likely to occur.
As you can see by the much lower number of new drugs produced in other countries.

At worst, we might have a decade of less research and advancement.

Hopefully you don't need a new drug in the next decade or two.

As I mentioned above, research itself is cheaper in these other countries if you leave out our subsidization.

If we subsidize research, that makes it cheaper. You seem confused.

They make far beyond their costs here for multiple reasons.

They also have to pay for the failed drugs that don't get released.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

In the late 1800's paper money was NOT a currency


Currency is a medium of exchange for goods and services. In general, it's money in the form of paper and coins, usually issued by a government and generally accepted at its face value as a method of payment.

So what ?

If you cared for our Constitutional Form of Governement you would object to paper money - Joe BuyThem was able to finance his illegal immigration scheme and the war in Ukraine using fiat money

I already pointed out your errors, you don't have to keep repeating them.

If you cared for our Constitutional Form of Governement you would object to paper money

I vehemently object to the state of Georgia printed paper money.