The Great Socialism Gap: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other..

[cnm]

Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use.

Does that mean the US system can not be applied to any country much smaller than the US? Your logic would seem to point that way.

 

[imawhosure]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

Their costs are lower because we (the U.S.A.) subsidize Europe and Canada's drug prices.
It's why ours is so much higher and theirs are lower.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

 

[cnm]

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.

Absolutely. You'd have to stop spending as much or more than the next 10 countries on 'defence'. But then what would stop the first wave of Iranian landing craft from sailing up the Hudson?

 

[pknopp]

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

...Americans. That’s a problem.

And an article from of all places...
Slate ^ | February 24, 2020 | William Saletan

For the past month, the centrist Democrats running against Sen. Bernie Sanders have begged Democratic voters not to nominate him. Former Vice President Joe Biden, former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, and Sen. Amy Klobuchar have argued that putting a socialist atop the ticket would help President Donald Trump and hurt Democratic candidates down the ballot. These warnings are well-founded, but they haven’t worked. Sanders has won the popular vote in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada.

Why, despite the warnings, is Sanders still winning? One reason is that a lot of people like him and what he stands for. Another reason is that other candidates are splitting the votes of moderate Democrats, leaving him with a plurality on the left. But there’s a third reason: Socialism doesn’t freak out Democratic voters the way it freaks out other Americans. On this subject, Democrats are very different not just from Republicans, but also from independents, who represent about 40 percent of Americans and about 30 percent of the electorate. Socialism is a loser among independents, and this makes it a liability in a general election. But Democrats don’t feel an aversion to socialism. So perhaps they don’t see the extent of the political danger.

The detachment starts with Sanders voters. In a September poll taken by Data for Progress, 37 percent of them identified themselves not as progressives or liberals, but as socialists, democratic socialists, or communists. Nearly all of them endorsed democratic socialism. In a January NBC/Wall Street Journal poll, most Sanders voters endorsed socialism even without the word “democratic” in front of it. Only 4 percent of them opposed it. These people aren’t likely to buy the argument that nominating a socialist is an unnecessary risk. For them, electing a socialist is the ballgame.

------------

There's a very interesting novel written in 1888 by Edward Bellamy regarding the perfect (socialist) Utopian world in the year 2000.

In the 1930s, it was declared by a number of magazines to be the most important novel of the previous 50 years.

Check out the plot summary in the Wikipedia article below.

Looking Backward (Wikipedia)

In a Gallup poll taken last month, Democrats didn’t differ much from independents in their stated willingness to vote for a black, female, gay, or atheist presidential nominee. For a Muslim nominee, the gap was more then 30 net percentage points. For a socialist, it was more than 60 points.

Stop perverting capitalism and you'll see less interest in socialism.

Unless it's too late.

There is not a company in the world that sells a product at a loss. The reason Europe and Canada have cheaper drug prices is because in those countries the government negotiate prices directly with the drug companies. A government has tools to keep those prices down. For instance making prescribing generic medicine mandatory for doctors if available. It creates a system where drug companies know that they have to charge reasonable prices.

America doesn't subsidize anyone. US citizens simply overpay in the name of the idea that the government shouldn't involve itself in anything to do with Capitalism.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

 

[imawhosure]

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

with tariffs. Next!

 

[Mac1958]

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Lets talk SOCIALISM------------>

It has been projected that BERNARD's ideas will cost 60 to 90 TRILLION over 10 years by most people counting. That is over and ABOVE what we spend now, so that is an add on to our spending.

If we CONFISCATED every asset that Americans have, their 401ks, their home equity, their bank accounts, we would still come up short.

The only other ways to do this, is massively raise taxes on EVERYONE, and since at the low end, we are talking 60 TRILLION, that means that tax rates would need to go above 70% to even get close, and anyone with a brain knows our economy would collapse as the buying power of Americans would collapse.

Or, they could rev up the printing presses for money faster! That is a HIDDEN tax, as only people with hard assets would be able to even come close to holding the line. Poor people who have no assets would be left further behind with no chance of escape.

Why?

Because the money in YOUR possession and that you make would be worth far, far, less due to inflation. So only those with hard assets such as gold, machinery, plants, would even have a chance to hold on to their current wealth, which would widen the inequality gap as the poor sunk further with absolutely no chance to escape poverty, unless elected to government.

And then, let me ask, just on the issue of healthcare--------------->what does Bernie know about healthcare? Anything? That is like putting one of us in charge of healthcare ideas, isn't it?

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

 

[cnm]

We pay for it. We pay differently, but we pay for it. And no one is ever denied care. anywhere.

Yeah, right. No gofundme pages for treatments. No way.

 

[imawhosure]

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

My point isn't about socialism. It's about the fact that capitalism has been perverted enough to make people look at alternatives.

That's how Trump got elected, as we know. The system was perverted and people had had enough.
.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

If I remember correctly, a boatload of them are due, or coming due.

 

[pknopp]

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Possibly true Mac, but if it keeps going the way it appears, you and the moderates are going to have to choose between Trump and Socialism; or the closest thing to it ever put forth in America.

I sure as hell wouldn't want to be you people who actually have to argue with themselves to choose between such stark choices.

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

 

[imawhosure]

Trump supports socialism. The only differences is who benefits from it.

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

 

[pknopp]

You can't get away with such a ridiculous statement!

So lowering taxes is Socialism, but raising taxes is not?

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

 

[imawhosure]

No, Trump likes his Socialism without paying for it. How did he finance his corporate farm bail outs?

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

See, you miss the point! The Fed has little choice. They are reacting to what past Presidents did, not what Trump is doing.

Now, when HIS debt comes up, you have a SOLID argument. Right now, not so much.

 

[MisterBeale]

Budgeting is about choices. I agree, we could, hypothetically do it. But we could not do it on top of, and not added to the things we are are currently doing right now. Our entire culture and national priorities would have to be completely rearranged.

Absolutely. You'd have to stop spending as much or more than the next 10 countries on 'defence'. But then what would stop the first wave of Iranian landing craft from sailing up the Hudson?

See. . . that's the thing.

With the Deep State constructed as it is. . . . folks that think Bernie has a chance of rearranging the National Priorities are absolutely clueless.

If Trump can't, Bernie certainly can't.

It's absolute insanity.

No one can even get an accurate accounting of the black hole of the where missing Trillions are going in the Defense Budget, and they want to do these insane ideas?



Too many stake holders, bases around the world, and the Deep State didn't even like when Trump threatened to change even a wee bit, the direction of the ship of state. What Bernie is talking about is way more radical than building a wall and pulling back a bit on the imperialism.


They won't just try to impeach Bernie, the Deep State will try to knock this guy off if he even tries to lay his grubby hands on the defense budget.

 

[pknopp]

Trump is/was enjoying the economic benefits of aggressive government spending increases and half a TRILLION in NY Fed intervention.

Four years ago, the Right would have been screaming SOCIALISM about that.
.

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

See, you miss the point! The Fed has little choice. They are reacting to what past Presidents did, not what Trump is doing.

Now, when HIS debt comes up, you have a SOLID argument. Right now, not so much.

He is doing the same thing. So if it was wrong before (and it was) it's wrong now.

 

[imawhosure]

I agree, with one caveat------------->doesn't the fed have to buy up a bunch of the bonds that Obama and Bush dumped on the market to keep it stable?

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

See, you miss the point! The Fed has little choice. They are reacting to what past Presidents did, not what Trump is doing.

Now, when HIS debt comes up, you have a SOLID argument. Right now, not so much.

He is doing the same thing. So if it was wrong before (and it was) it's wrong now.

Don't disagree with you, but when your solution is to support a candidate willing to add 60 to 90 TRILLION in 10 years, your entreaties of how bad Trump is, kinda is laughable, wouldn't you say!

 

[pknopp]

It wasn't done to keep it stable. It was done to keep it inflated.

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

See, you miss the point! The Fed has little choice. They are reacting to what past Presidents did, not what Trump is doing.

Now, when HIS debt comes up, you have a SOLID argument. Right now, not so much.

He is doing the same thing. So if it was wrong before (and it was) it's wrong now.

Don't disagree with you, but when your solution is to support a candidate willing to add 60 to 90 TRILLION in 10 years, your entreaties of how bad Trump is, kinda is laughable, wouldn't you say!

You say 60 to 90 trillion and I dismiss those claims. Just because you claim something does not make it so.

Will Sanders be able to lower health care costs like other countries already do? It's important to note, they already do it. It's not "pie in the sky" it's already being done.

That's what I want and I believe Sanders will work for that. Will he fail? Maybe but I'm going to support the one who will try as opposed to the one who wants to maintain the status quo.

 

[imawhosure]

That is not the way my financial adviser told me. Those 2 dumb a**es along with Clinton, financed the debt with short term bonds. Now that they are coming due, there is not enough money in the private sector to buy them up, so the fed basically has to refinance much of them.

Financial advisors aren't going to be against anything (even if it is harmful long term) that artificially inflates the markets.

See, you miss the point! The Fed has little choice. They are reacting to what past Presidents did, not what Trump is doing.

Now, when HIS debt comes up, you have a SOLID argument. Right now, not so much.

He is doing the same thing. So if it was wrong before (and it was) it's wrong now.

Don't disagree with you, but when your solution is to support a candidate willing to add 60 to 90 TRILLION in 10 years, your entreaties of how bad Trump is, kinda is laughable, wouldn't you say!

You say 60 to 90 trillion and I dismiss those claims. Just because you claim something does not make it so.

Will Sanders be able to lower health care costs like other countries already do? It's important to note, they already do it. It's not "pie in the sky" it's already being done.

That's what I want and I believe Sanders will work for that. Will he fail? Maybe but I'm going to support the one who will try as opposed to the one who wants to maintain the status quo.

Ok, then lets make it 30 Trillion, how is that? That is DOUBLE what we take in now per year in the Fed government when added to what we already put out.

Where ya getting that money? Even if we take Sanders and his SUPPOSED study at face value, it only brings in 450 BILLION per year, leaving us a shortfall of 2.5 TRILLION par year.

So now what? Tell the nice people where all that cash is coming from, and don't you DARE say the rich! A 3 trillion drain on them would have them broke in less that 5 years, so you gotta have a source of revenue. WHERE IS IT!

 

[CowboyTed]

Communism????

Who is proposing Communism... Only people talkling about Communism is Trumpers...

 

[cnm]

See. . . that's the thing.

Absolutely. The greatest country in the world is helpless. Helpless.

 

[jc456]

Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use.

Does that mean the US system can not be applied to any country much smaller than the US? Your logic would seem to point that way.

not at all. I don't think comparing systems except to explain the difference is all we need. But, to say that a country x big is better because it does y, and that we should follow along, it would be nice to compare the volume of the prize. We are the greatest country in the world. People want to come here. Now, with how we are coordinated. Not the way Copenhagen's configured, how we're configured. so spare me your shaming bullshit.