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

[jc456]

when did the middle east end up in Guatemala and Venezuela?

Are you pretending immigrants to the US from south of the border are not trying to escape violence in their own countries?

human trafficking is why, the Cartel, paid for by operatives in the US. sure.

 

[pknopp]

The complete lack of a constitutionally protected right of due process.

what happened to Carter Page, Flynn, Manafort, and Papadopolis? That's so disingenuous, it's funny.

Did they have their due process ignored? If you can make that argument, I would listen to it.

certainly they did. each and everyone. The fact that others who did exactly the same thing weren't arrested like them is that evidence. for Manafort, there's Podesta. why isn't he in jail. They did the same exact thing. the same exact thing.

There are a ton of people who should be in jail. Clapper and Blankfein for two. That they are not is not an issue with due process. It's an issue with an unjust justice system.

yes, it's an issue with equal protection under the law, which is due process.

They were granted due process? They got a trial where they were able to provide a defense?

 

[jc456]

when did the middle east end up in Guatemala and Venezuela?

Are you pretending immigrants to the US from south of the border are not trying to escape violence in their own countries?

they're fleeiing fking socialism, why? cause it's so fking great. You just proved what socialism does.

 

[The Purge]

when did the middle east end up in Guatemala and Venezuela?

Are you pretending immigrants to the US from south of the border are not trying to escape violence in their own countries?

No. Asshole, they are coming for FREE SHIT THAT THE Manchurian mulatto promised them!....and they still believe it because there are leftists paid for by Soros and leftist Americans that still spread these lies south of the border.....try looking at some news from other countries instead of the LEFTIST FAKE NEWS from here!

 

[jc456]

what happened to Carter Page, Flynn, Manafort, and Papadopolis? That's so disingenuous, it's funny.

Did they have their due process ignored? If you can make that argument, I would listen to it.

certainly they did. each and everyone. The fact that others who did exactly the same thing weren't arrested like them is that evidence. for Manafort, there's Podesta. why isn't he in jail. They did the same exact thing. the same exact thing.

There are a ton of people who should be in jail. Clapper and Blankfein for two. That they are not is not an issue with due process. It's an issue with an unjust justice system.

yes, it's an issue with equal protection under the law, which is due process.

They were granted due process? They got a trial where they were able to provide a defense?

no, they weren't allowed to do what they needed to do, because the judges disallowed defense arguments and allowed prosecutors to hold documentation. no due process. Again, equal protection under the law without is is the loss of due process. prosecutors threatening family members with inflicting lies and seizing their property and taking all their money. yeah. son, you couldn't be honest for one fking thread.

 

[The Purge]

...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.
.

and that system tripled down on their perversions. amazing. Now even Bernie wants your guns. how hitlerish of him.

Trump backs 'red flag' gun laws. What do they actually do? - CNNPolitics

More FAKE NEWS...DAMN, IT IS CNN!

 

[forkup]

...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.

No it isn't.

People should not have to choose between being healthy and having any sort of life outside of that.

Most everyone will pay and those that don't will at some point. No one is arguing there will be no costs to anyone. That is a totally made up position to demonize people.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

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?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

 

[cnm]

everyone does get treated.

Not if their gofundme doesn't work or they don't have insurance or don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or can't pay cash. What is this bullshit you're spouting?

 

[cnm]

when did the middle east end up in Guatemala and Venezuela?

Are you pretending immigrants to the US from south of the border are not trying to escape violence in their own countries?

human trafficking is why, the Cartel, paid for by operatives in the US. sure.

JFC. You're insane. Or drunk.

Either way, my bad.

 

[jc456]

everyone does get treated.

Not if their gofundme doesn't work or they don't have insurance or don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or can't pay cash. What is this bullshit you're spouting?

they have the gofundme because they got treatment. How else do they know how much to pay?

 

[forkup]

...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.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

 

[pknopp]

everyone does get treated.

Not if their gofundme doesn't work or they don't have insurance or don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or can't pay cash. What is this bullshit you're spouting?

Woman says her son couldn't afford his insulin – now he's dead

 

[jc456]

everyone does get treated.

Not if their gofundme doesn't work or they don't have insurance or don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or can't pay cash. What is this bullshit you're spouting?

Woman says her son couldn't afford his insulin – now he's dead

sure, I believe that not.

 

[jc456]

...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.

I think it's a direct result of the simple fact that in the US in general and on the right in particular Socialism, Communism... even Fascism get conflated. To the point that nobody knows what they mean.

So the right opposes it, even when what Bernie is suggesting is simply a form of Social Democracy like in Europe, which is Capitalism with a strong social safety net. they condemn it as Communism which it surely isn't.

The left supports it even going as far supporting Communism which I'm pretty sure those that say they support it know nothing about.

From a political standpoint keeping it nice, a vague makes sense. It's much easier to attack somebody for being Communist than having to explain to people why it's not in their best interest to have access to healthcare regardless of how rich you are. Or to explain why it is in their best interest to have a healthcare system that makes you pay twice as much for worse results compared to other Western nations. Or to explain why it makes sense to pay back loans for 20 years to go to college.

This is the conundrum for Bernie. How do you explain to people what you actually represent when there's a huge echo chamber misrepresenting what you stand for?

Bernie is not a sweden or a norway worshiper

when he traveled abroad he took his honeymoon in moscow not copenhagen

I'll tell you what. You give me any quote citing Bernie that the US needs to emulate Soviet Russia. I'll look for quotes of him saying we need to take lessons from other Western Democracies. Let's see who can find the most?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...543e18-6a9c-11e9-a66d-a82d3f3d96d5_story.html

 

[jc456]

everyone does get treated.

Not if their gofundme doesn't work or they don't have insurance or don't qualify for Medicare or Medicaid or can't pay cash. What is this bullshit you're spouting?

Woman says her son couldn't afford his insulin – now he's dead

Insulin Access and Affordability Working Group: Conclusions and Recommendations

 

[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.

As pointed out many times that is NOT what has happened in every other first world country. Their health care costs are lower than ours.

What is their energy costs?
what is the doctor's availability?
Do they make pharmaceuticals? or get deals from us?
Can you be honest?
or not?

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

They pay 5 dollars a gallon for fuel to fill their vehicles, they have mandatory wages. There is nothing close to what our country is. choice of doctor and current availability. Our country is much bigger than example country you wish to use. Any. China and India are the two poorest mthr fking countries, and they are jealous of us. Each government. There is no example per capita you can choose. But hey, go for it, let's discuss.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

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?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

 

[cnm]

they have the gofundme because they got treatment. How else do they know how much to pay?

They got a quote.

Oops. Sorry, shouldn't feed the lunatic.

 

[jc456]

they have the gofundme because they got treatment. How else do they know how much to pay?

They got a quote.

Oops. Sorry, shouldn't feed the lunatic.

how did they get a quote?

 

[forkup]

...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.

I always chuckle at defenses like this. Their costs are cheaper because we charge them less for their pharmaceuticals than we charge ourselves. And you support this? "Do they make pharmaceuticals"? How does one address a generalization like this? Germany has UHC. They have access to doctors. They create pharmaceuticals.......all for less money than us.

Gas here has approached $5 at times. Again, you are arguing we are the greatest country in the world but we can not do what every other first world country has done. Provide coverage for everyone at a lower cost.

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?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

Adding Up Senator Sanders's Campaign Proposals So Far
This is the most accurate fact check of the cost of Sander's proposals both what the campaign suggested it would cost and their own calculation they don't match up by the way.

It's also the most accurate fact check on how the campaign proposes to pay for it again they don't match up. The shortfall according to the fact check is NOT 60 to 90 trillion but rather 18 trillion. For that 18 trillion, the US gets free education, UH, free daycare, infrastructure investments, etc., etc. This means your assessment as to what extra increased revenue it would cost to fund it is off by at least a factor of three. So either you deliberately omitted the proposed increases in revenue or didn't check it. It also has the problem that it's very hard to calculate all the variables for such an ambitious plan.

Personally I think Bernie is making the calculation that telling people the actual cost and the tax increases needed to carry it out would make him unelectable or just overpromises. He figures that after he gets elected he simply would raise taxes to make it budget neutral, or he will do what Trump did and simply don't fund the shortfall for his campaign promises. The deficit grew 50 percent under him and this during a bull market. Do you find that problematic I wonder? Having said that the guy he's running against has lied 16000 times. At least you get something back for it.

I'm European. My wife is an American. My tax rate is around 50 percent. The thing is after you consider the cost of living and expenses I don't have that Americans do. My actual income is probably comparable if not slightly higher. I also have a guaranteed income if I fall ill or lose my job. My kid can go to school at a very low cost all the way to college. I have healthcare that would require an American to be a millionaire to top. Etc. Etc.

I'm not a bullshitter and I would lie if I said that I believe that it would be easy or even possible for the US to emulate Europe in the way we arrange social security. There is a huge cultural gap as to how we look at society compared to you. But would it kill you to at least approach the ideas that Bernie proposes with at least enough of an open mind to not immediately just dismiss them?

 

[jc456]

...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?

We are running a TRILLION dollar deficit this year. If the Left claims that it is EASY to come up with this money to pay for all this stuff, then why didn't they propose a budget this year in congress, show a way to even come up with 1 TRILLION a year that is much less than their plans, and balance the budget? They would have won everything they wanted if they would have done that, but they can NOT! They are blowing smoke, and I will be damned if a whole bunch of Americans aren't falling for it, hook, line, and sinker.

Before I answer this post I want you to link your assertions.

What are you talking about? Even the Democrats admit what this will cost. When BOTH sides agree on a price tag, the only question is how to pay for it!

So what do you actually want? The price tag? Cause if you are asking me how to explain how it is paid for, that is YOUR job, not mine-)

Adding Up Senator Sanders's Campaign Proposals So Far
This is the most accurate fact check of the cost of Sander's proposals both what the campaign suggested it would cost and their own calculation they don't match up by the way.

It's also the most accurate fact check on how the campaign proposes to pay for it again they don't match up. The shortfall according to the fact check is NOT 60 to 90 trillion but rather 18 trillion. For that 18 trillion, the US gets free education, UH, free daycare, infrastructure investments, etc., etc. This means your assessment as to what extra increased revenue it would cost to fund it is off by at least a factor of three. So either you deliberately omitted the proposed increases in revenue or didn't check it. It also has the problem that it's very hard to calculate all the variables for such an ambitious plan.

Personally I think Bernie is making the calculation that telling people the actual cost and the tax increases needed to carry it out would make him unelectable. He figures that after he gets elected he simply would raise taxes to make it budget neutral, or he will do what Trump did and simply don't fund the shortfall for his campaign promises. The deficit grew 50 percent under him and this during a bull market. Do you find that problematic I wonder? Having said that the guy he's running against has lied 16000 times. At least you get something back for it.

I'm European. My wife is an American. My tax rate is around 50 percent. The thing is after you consider the cost of living and expenses I don't have that Americans do. My actual income is probably comparable if not slightly higher. I also have a guaranteed income if I fall ill or lose my job. My kid can go to school at a very low cost all the way to college. I have healthcare that would require an American to be a millionaire to top. Etc. Etc.

I'm not a bullshitter and I would lie if I said that I believe that it would be easy or even possible for the US to emulate Europe in the way we arrange social security. There is a huge cultural gap as to how we look at society compared to you. But would it kill you to at least approach the ideas that Bernie proposes with at least enough of an open mind to not immediately just dismiss them?