The Myth of Sanders’ Socialism

[Rigby5]

Hes pretty sure hes a socialist .....who would kill half of yas with his hair brained stale ideas given the chance

Anyone in government who does not admit that government should always be socialist, meaning not profit motivated, is just a liar.

 

[Rigby5]

Hitler was a Fascist, which is an ultra capitalist.
National Socialist means anti-socialist.
Stalin and Mao killed off all the socialists and created totalitarian states that were not at all socialist.

Hitler was a Fascist, which is an ultra capitalist.

So he cut taxes, reduced regulations and let them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted to charge?

Or are you lying, again?

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.
If you understood what happened before WWII at all, you would know that the corporations were in charge, and they selected Hitler.
Hitler had just gotten out of prison, and had no money for those expensive sports arena events that millions were spent on.

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.

Sounds awful!!!

Any links to him keeping his hands off the German economy?

Or are you lying, again?

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war. It was only after the war when they were not allowed to make planes any more, that their profits dropped.

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.

I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.

Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.

Go ahead, post that shit up.

Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:

{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]

The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]

The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

 

[Rigby5]

The refugees from Cuba are for economic reasons, which means they can't afford a boat, even to rent.

Likewise, at the Gaviota tourism agency, they repeated the same information to us: To be able to take a boat trip, we had to show authorization from the Naval Command Center.

Finally we called the National Department of the Naval Command Center, where they confirmed that Cubans aren’t allowed to sail, with the only exception being those people who are married to citizens from other countries – though they still have to apply for aCuba Prohibits Its Citizens from Boarding Boats - Havana Times

Totally wrong and just propaganda.
Cuba has a huge fishing fleet.
Cubans sail all the time.

HAVANA, CUBA

Paco sold everything he owned at home in the coastal town of Bahia Honda, west of Havana, to get out of Cuba. He also asked for help from relatives in South Florida. In an island where the minimum salary is $10 per month, it’s tough to pull together the $12,000 that people smugglers in Miami charge for the clandestine trip.

“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”
“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”

“In these kinds of towns, everyone knows everyone, and who are the ones who want to leave the country. The departure is organized in Miami in total secrecy, and only on the last day are the travelers told where on the coast to meet,” said Paco, who would not give his real name because leaving Cuba without official permission is a crime.

Sure but that was because the Colonialist forced Cuba on a sugar and gambling economy, and then blockaded any sugar or tourism market.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you support socialism for the extreme wealthy, but not for the poor and working class?

Happy to eliminate socialism for wealthy, poor, and working, but why so afraid to tell us what socialism for the rich you are talking about?

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.
They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions, while poor do not even get to write off rent.
They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.
Many, many more.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

When it comes to a politician speaking to both interviewers and the crowd, praising the policies of foreign nations, this to me is a good indicator as to where his/her political ideology stands and as throughout this particular candidates past and present, he has repeatedly praised Marxist-Leninist nations and claims to be a Socialist (I ignore his self title of "Democratic Socialist," as the Marxist-Leninists who preach to the crowds, consider themselves being Democratic when they can convince the crowds to go along with their ideas, then afterwards, the hammer drops), that says, Marxist-Leninist politician.

The education and health care accomplishments of Castro in Cuba deserve to be complimented.
'They clearly were good.
And that was the extent of what Bernie said.
No one can contest that.

The educational systems in Cuba, China, the old Soviet Union, Vietnam and North Korea are all Marxist-Leninist propaganda machines that condemn individuality and the freedom of thought. As for health care, the W.H.O. praises any Socialist health care program, since the programs include all the citizens. There are inherent problems with Socialized health care that can't be overcome.
1. With a huge influx of a migrant population and/or the elderly population grows faster than the younger population, the services usually afforded the populace becomes significantly strained and can and does fail to provide for all. Cuba, as an example, is a small island nation with a small population in comparison with a huge nation with a large population. Many Cubans fled Marxist-Leninist rule and settled in the US, thus reducing demand on services for health care there.
2. While staying in a B&B in France and speaking with an ex-pat Brit living there, she said she left England because their Socialized health care system was seriously inefficient and you could not get in to see a provider in a timely manner, thus she has gone to the French health care system, that while a socialized health care system, was more proactive with its patients. Since the influx of large numbers of migrants, that health care system is now strained to provide services and the wait time to see a practitioner is now long.
3. Socialized health care means lower incomes for the health care professionals, thus the quality suffers and stifles health care innovation, which is why patients are flown to the US for high tech care.
4. The older you get, the less worth you are to bother with under Socialized medicine and you suffer for it.

There are no problems with socialize health care.
Sure changes in demographics can cause a bad ratio of workers to elderly who need health care, but that has nothing to do with socialism, and there is no solution to it from capitalism.
Socialized medicine does NOT at all mean lower wages for health care professionals.
The whole world proves that.
US private health care pays huge profits to insurance companies, not health care professionals.
They get paid less in the US compared to socialized countries like in Europe.
You clearly know nothing of socialism because the worth of a person is a capitalist concept entirely.
The socialized medicine of England, France, Germany, etc., is rated much higher than the US, has shorter waiting, and is less than half the cost.

Socialized medicine does NOT at all mean lower wages for health care professionals.
The whole world proves that.

Cool story, bro.

How many US trained doctors leave the US to practice under socialized medical systems?

How many foreign trained doctors leave socialized systems to practice in the US?

Has nothing to do with being socialist or capitalist.
The doctors coming here are simply from poor countries, like India or China.

US private health care pays huge profits to insurance companies, not health care professionals.​

They get paid less in the US compared to socialized countries like in Europe.​

Top 10 countries with the highest salaries for doctors - Welcome to ERKA.

The above source says you're wrong.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hitler was a Fascist, which is an ultra capitalist.

So he cut taxes, reduced regulations and let them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted to charge?

Or are you lying, again?

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.
If you understood what happened before WWII at all, you would know that the corporations were in charge, and they selected Hitler.
Hitler had just gotten out of prison, and had no money for those expensive sports arena events that millions were spent on.

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.

Sounds awful!!!

Any links to him keeping his hands off the German economy?

Or are you lying, again?

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war. It was only after the war when they were not allowed to make planes any more, that their profits dropped.

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.

I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.

Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.

Go ahead, post that shit up.

Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:

{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]

The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]

The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.

Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.

 

[Rigby5]

because that kid might be the one operating on you one day, or designing the bridge you have to drive across.

1) if he's operating then he's qualified regardless of whether he went to private schools or public welfare schools.

2) since our public welfare socialist schools are generally about the worst in the civilized world it seems clear we should support private schools

Our public schools are not the worst in the world at all.
We are in the top ten.
{...
As of 2018, the top ten countries based on education rankings are:

• The United Kingdom
• The United States
• Canada
• Germany
• France
• Australia
• Switzerland
• Sweden
• Japan
• The Netherlands

...}
http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/education-rankings-by-country/

And private schools tend to be no better, and often worse, than public schools.

When isolating the 64 countries that administered the test in both 2015 and 2018, U.S. students ranked 30th in math, up from 35th in 2015, and eighth in reading, up from 15th in 2015. In science, U.S. students ranked 11th, up from 17th in 2015.

You have not shown your sources so I am skeptical, but the schools in all those other countries are public, so you sitll have not made any case for private schools being better than public, or that having only private schools makes for a better society.
I think the facts prove otherwise, since all countries have public schools.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Likewise, at the Gaviota tourism agency, they repeated the same information to us: To be able to take a boat trip, we had to show authorization from the Naval Command Center.

Finally we called the National Department of the Naval Command Center, where they confirmed that Cubans aren’t allowed to sail, with the only exception being those people who are married to citizens from other countries – though they still have to apply for aCuba Prohibits Its Citizens from Boarding Boats - Havana Times

Totally wrong and just propaganda.
Cuba has a huge fishing fleet.
Cubans sail all the time.

HAVANA, CUBA

Paco sold everything he owned at home in the coastal town of Bahia Honda, west of Havana, to get out of Cuba. He also asked for help from relatives in South Florida. In an island where the minimum salary is $10 per month, it’s tough to pull together the $12,000 that people smugglers in Miami charge for the clandestine trip.

“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”
“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”

“In these kinds of towns, everyone knows everyone, and who are the ones who want to leave the country. The departure is organized in Miami in total secrecy, and only on the last day are the travelers told where on the coast to meet,” said Paco, who would not give his real name because leaving Cuba without official permission is a crime.

Sure but that was because the Colonialist forced Cuba on a sugar and gambling economy, and then blockaded any sugar or tourism market.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada

Show me.

But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

Nobody else uses sugar or likes to gamble? Sounds like you're making stuff up again.

 

[Rigby5]

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.
If you understood what happened before WWII at all, you would know that the corporations were in charge, and they selected Hitler.
Hitler had just gotten out of prison, and had no money for those expensive sports arena events that millions were spent on.

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.

Sounds awful!!!

Any links to him keeping his hands off the German economy?

Or are you lying, again?

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war. It was only after the war when they were not allowed to make planes any more, that their profits dropped.

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.

I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.

Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.

Go ahead, post that shit up.

Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:

{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]

The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]

The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.

Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.

It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you support socialism for the extreme wealthy, but not for the poor and working class?

Happy to eliminate socialism for wealthy, poor, and working, but why so afraid to tell us what socialism for the rich you are talking about?

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.
They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions, while poor do not even get to write off rent.
They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.
Many, many more.

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.

2019-2020 Capital Gains Tax Rates & How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

Looks like everyone gets lower capital gains rates.

They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions,

Capped at $10,000 a year.

They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.

Poor people don't get tax free employer health insurance? You're lying. Again.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Worse than just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted, he also offered them huge and lucrative military contracts.

Sounds awful!!!

Any links to him keeping his hands off the German economy?

Or are you lying, again?

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war. It was only after the war when they were not allowed to make planes any more, that their profits dropped.

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.

I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.

Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.

Go ahead, post that shit up.

Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:

{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]

The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]

The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.

Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.

It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?

Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?

You lied and said he was an ultra-capitalist who did more than "just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted"

Everything you've linked has disagreed with your claims.

 

[Rigby5]

Totally wrong and just propaganda.
Cuba has a huge fishing fleet.
Cubans sail all the time.

HAVANA, CUBA

Paco sold everything he owned at home in the coastal town of Bahia Honda, west of Havana, to get out of Cuba. He also asked for help from relatives in South Florida. In an island where the minimum salary is $10 per month, it’s tough to pull together the $12,000 that people smugglers in Miami charge for the clandestine trip.

“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”
“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”

“In these kinds of towns, everyone knows everyone, and who are the ones who want to leave the country. The departure is organized in Miami in total secrecy, and only on the last day are the travelers told where on the coast to meet,” said Paco, who would not give his real name because leaving Cuba without official permission is a crime.

Sure but that was because the Colonialist forced Cuba on a sugar and gambling economy, and then blockaded any sugar or tourism market.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada

Show me.

But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

Nobody else uses sugar or likes to gamble? Sounds like you're making stuff up again.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

I...
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]

As of 2018, the Cuban embargo is enforced mainly through six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.[2] The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights".[3] The Helms-Burton Act further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor government in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government were met.
...
Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.[2][14] Human-rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[15] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[16] have also been critical of the embargo. Critics[which?] of the embargo often refer to it as a "blockade" and say that the respective laws are too harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in up to 10 years in prison
...
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law). The European Council has stated that it:[69]

while reaffirming its concern to promote democratic reform in Cuba, recalled the deep concern expressed by the European Council over the extraterritorial effects of the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act" adopted by the United States and similar pending legislation regarding Iran and Libya. It noted the widespread international objections to this legislation. It called upon President Clinton to waive the provisions of Title III and expressed serious concern at the measures already taken to implement Title IV of the Act. The Council identified a range of measures which could be deployed by the EU in response to the damage to the interests of EU companies resulting from the implementation of the Act. Among these are the following:

1. a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;
2. 'changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;
3. the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;
4. the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.

...}

 

[gipper]

Why do you support socialism for the extreme wealthy, but not for the poor and working class?

Happy to eliminate socialism for wealthy, poor, and working, but why so afraid to tell us what socialism for the rich you are talking about?

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.
They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions, while poor do not even get to write off rent.
They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.
Many, many more.

Plus when they crash the economy, Uncle bails them out big time. The rest of us are on our own.

 

[Rigby5]

Why do you support socialism for the extreme wealthy, but not for the poor and working class?

Happy to eliminate socialism for wealthy, poor, and working, but why so afraid to tell us what socialism for the rich you are talking about?

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.
They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions, while poor do not even get to write off rent.
They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.
Many, many more.

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.

View attachment 311149

2019-2020 Capital Gains Tax Rates & How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

Looks like everyone gets lower capital gains rates.

They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions,

Capped at $10,000 a year.

They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.

Poor people don't get tax free employer health insurance? You're lying. Again.

No, poor people get paid in salary established by their employer, which is not tax exempt.
But the higher ups in the company can decide how to compensate themselves, so can instead of taking a cash salary, can opt to take their pay in stock options.
That allows them to avoid the normal tax rates we would pay, like 30%, and instead only pay 20%.
You can not pay capital gains rate on your salary normally.
Only the wealthy can arrange that.

And no, I do not believe real estate mortgage write off is capped that low.
'{...
Taxpayers can deduct the interest paid on first and second mortgages up to $1,000,000 in mortgage debt (the limit is $500,000 if married and filing separately).
..}
Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Calculator | Bankrate

And yes, poor people do not get employer heath insurance.
Even WalMart does not cover all health care for its employees.
Fast food has no coverage at all.

 

[Flopper]

True ignorance is common in the land of the (not) free. The billionaire’s media sees to that. This is yet another perfect example. This myth is believed by many on the right and left. The 1% who run everything don’t much like Bernie, so their media makes sure to dupe millions into thinking as they do.

MARCH 5, 2020
The Myth of Sanders’ “Socialism”
by M. G. PIETY

Fox News has an all-out frontal assault on Bernie Sanders’ purported “socialism.” It is a sad statement on the level of ignorance in this country that anyone could take seriously the charge that Sanders is a socialist. What Sanders is advocating is something approaching the social-welfare systems of other economically developed countries and that’s a far cry from the socialism Fox News is using as a boogeyman to frighten conservatives. The “socialism” Fox is decrying is the old-fashioned Stalinist-Maoist kind where all important industries are nationalized, most of the private property of the wealthy is seized by the state, and there are no such things as individual rights and freedoms because the very idea of “individuals” is considered capitalist propaganda.

The Myth of Sanders' "Socialism" - CounterPunch.org

Republicans have successful equated the social welfare systems with socialism and socialism with communism, nazism, atheism, and just about every other evil known to mankind for the last 40 or 50 years. They did pretty much the same with Clinton. Clinton was carrying too baggage in 2016 and so is Sander in 2020. Biden has his skeletons but unlike Sanders, republicans have only about 6 months to convince voters that he's the devil incarnate.

 

[skye]

hmmmm.....a myth that breadline Bernie is on the Left of the political spectrum?

I have my doubts.

 

[Rigby5]

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.
Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war. It was only after the war when they were not allowed to make planes any more, that their profits dropped.

Just look at any weapons plan, and you will see that many German companies jumped to make bids and prototypes.

I'd rather look at your proof that Hitler was hands-off the German economy.

Or you can look up the finances of any German company, like Messerschmitt, and you will see high profits during the war.

Go ahead, post that shit up.

Reasonable request.
I do not have much time, but start with this:

{...
The German economy, like those of many other western nations, suffered the effects of the Great Depression with unemployment soaring around the Wall Street Crash of 1929.[1] When Adolf Hitler became Chancellor of Germany in 1933, he introduced policies aimed at improving the economy. The changes included privatization of state industries, autarky (national economic self-sufficiency), and tariffs on imports. Although weekly earnings increased by 19% in real terms[2] in the period between 1932 and 1938, average working hours had also risen to approximately 60 per week by 1939. Furthermore, reduced foreign trade meant rationing in consumer goods like poultry, fruit, and clothing for many Germans.[3]

The Nazis believed in war as the primary engine of human progress, and argued that the purpose of a country’s economy should be to enable that country to fight and win wars of expansion.[4] As such, almost immediately after coming to power, they embarked on a vast program of military rearmament, which quickly dwarfed civilian investment.[5] During the 1930s, Nazi Germany increased its military spending faster than any other state in peacetime,[6] and the military eventually came to represent the majority of the German economy in the 1940s.[7] This was funded mainly through deficit financing before the war, and the Nazis expected to cover their debt by plundering the wealth of conquered nations during and after the war.[8] Such plunder did occur, but its results fell far short of Nazi expectations.[9]

The Nazi government developed a partnership with leading German business interests, who supported the goals of the regime and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.
...}

Economy of Nazi Germany - Wikipedia

and its war effort in exchange for advantageous contracts, subsidies, and the suppression of the trade union movement.[10] Cartels and monopolies were encouraged at the expense of small businesses, even though the Nazis had received considerable electoral support from small business owners.

Weird, this doesn't sound very hands-off.

It sound like exactly what it was, a conspiracy of the corporations, military, and aristocracy.
Aka, the wealthy elite.
Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?

Who else is going to benefit from "Cartels and monopolies were encouraged"?

You lied and said he was an ultra-capitalist who did more than "just cutting taxes, reducing regulations, and letting them produce what they wanted at the prices they wanted"

Everything you've linked has disagreed with your claims.

Wrong.
The link clearly shows that not only were cartels and monopolies encourages, but unions, strikes, etc.,were not only made illegal, but slave labor was provided by the government, for free.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

HAVANA, CUBA

Paco sold everything he owned at home in the coastal town of Bahia Honda, west of Havana, to get out of Cuba. He also asked for help from relatives in South Florida. In an island where the minimum salary is $10 per month, it’s tough to pull together the $12,000 that people smugglers in Miami charge for the clandestine trip.

“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”
“In this town, everyone wants to leave” for the United States, he said. “Everyone wants to go.”

“In these kinds of towns, everyone knows everyone, and who are the ones who want to leave the country. The departure is organized in Miami in total secrecy, and only on the last day are the travelers told where on the coast to meet,” said Paco, who would not give his real name because leaving Cuba without official permission is a crime.

Sure but that was because the Colonialist forced Cuba on a sugar and gambling economy, and then blockaded any sugar or tourism market.
It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

It was the US that deliberately caused Cuban poverty, not Castro.

Couldn't sell sugar to non-US consumers?
Couldn't get non-US gamblers into their casinos?

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada, which has UK protection.
We even crushed the governments of any country that was too friendly with Cuba.
But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

The US punished any other country that would trade with Cuba, except Canada

Show me.

But it was only the US that had any significant interest in sugar or gambling.

Nobody else uses sugar or likes to gamble? Sounds like you're making stuff up again.

United States embargo against Cuba - Wikipedia

I...
The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]

As of 2018, the Cuban embargo is enforced mainly through six statutes: the Trading with the Enemy Act of 1917, the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Cuban Assets Control Regulations of 1963, the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, the Helms–Burton Act of 1996, and the Trade Sanctions Reform and Export Enhancement Act of 2000.[2] The stated purpose of the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992 is to maintain sanctions on Cuba as long as the Cuban government refuses to move toward "democratization and greater respect for human rights".[3] The Helms-Burton Act further restricted United States citizens from doing business in or with Cuba, and mandated restrictions on giving public or private assistance to any successor government in Havana unless and until certain claims against the Cuban government were met.
...
Since 1992, the UN General Assembly has passed a resolution every year condemning the ongoing impact of the embargo and declaring it in violation of the Charter of the United Nations and of international law. In 2014, out of the 193-nation assembly, 188 countries voted for the nonbinding resolution, the United States and Israel voted against and the Pacific Island nations Palau, Marshall Islands and Micronesia abstained.[2][14] Human-rights groups including Amnesty International,[2] Human Rights Watch,[15] and the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights[16] have also been critical of the embargo. Critics[which?] of the embargo often refer to it as a "blockade" and say that the respective laws are too harsh, citing the fact that violations can result in up to 10 years in prison
...
The Helms-Burton Act has been the target of criticism from Canadian and European governments in particular, who object to what they say is the extraterritorial pretensions of a piece of legislation aimed at punishing non-U.S. corporations and non-U.S. investors who have economic interests in Cuba. In the House of Commons of Canada, Helms-Burton was mocked by the introduction of the Godfrey-Milliken Bill, which called for the return of property of United Empire Loyalists seized by the American government as a result of the American Revolution (the bill never became law). The European Council has stated that it:[69]

while reaffirming its concern to promote democratic reform in Cuba, recalled the deep concern expressed by the European Council over the extraterritorial effects of the "Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity (Libertad) Act" adopted by the United States and similar pending legislation regarding Iran and Libya. It noted the widespread international objections to this legislation. It called upon President Clinton to waive the provisions of Title III and expressed serious concern at the measures already taken to implement Title IV of the Act. The Council identified a range of measures which could be deployed by the EU in response to the damage to the interests of EU companies resulting from the implementation of the Act. Among these are the following:

1. a move to a WTO dispute settlement panel;
2. 'changes in the procedures governing entry by representatives of US companies to EU Member States;
3. the use/introduction of legislation within the EU to neutralize the extraterritorial effects of the US legislation;
4. the establishment of a watch list of US companies filing Title III actions.

...}

The United States currently imposes a commercial, economic, and financial embargo against Cuba. The United States first imposed an embargo on the sale of arms to Cuba on March 14, 1958, during the Fulgencio Batista regime. Again on October 19, 1960 (almost two years after the Cuban Revolution had led to the deposition of the Batista regime) the U.S. placed an embargo on exports to Cuba except for food and medicine after Cuba nationalized American-owned Cuban oil refineries without compensation. On February 7, 1962 the embargo was extended to include almost all exports. The embargo does not prohibit the trade of food and humanitarian supplies.[1]

Yes, US exports to Cuba.

Thanks for admitting we didn't punish other countries that traded with Cuba.

 

[MisterBeale]

True ignorance is common in the land of the (not) free. The billionaire’s media sees to that. This is yet another perfect example. This myth is believed by many on the right and left. The 1% who run everything don’t much like Bernie, so their media makes sure to dupe millions into thinking as they do.

MARCH 5, 2020
The Myth of Sanders’ “Socialism”
by M. G. PIETY

Fox News has an all-out frontal assault on Bernie Sanders’ purported “socialism.” It is a sad statement on the level of ignorance in this country that anyone could take seriously the charge that Sanders is a socialist. What Sanders is advocating is something approaching the social-welfare systems of other economically developed countries and that’s a far cry from the socialism Fox News is using as a boogeyman to frighten conservatives. The “socialism” Fox is decrying is the old-fashioned Stalinist-Maoist kind where all important industries are nationalized, most of the private property of the wealthy is seized by the state, and there are no such things as individual rights and freedoms because the very idea of “individuals” is considered capitalist propaganda.

The Myth of Sanders' "Socialism" - CounterPunch.org

The Myth of Sanders’ Socialism

What is the proper name for his preferred form of government/economics?
Communism? Marxism? Maoism? Leninism? Trotskyism? Something else?

Please explain.

Marxist is best. No?

Ok. So the media calling him a socialist actually makes him less loathsome.

It’s the old lesser of two evils thing. Bernie is the lesser evil that is Donnie.

. . . well, especially when we consider that most democrats, and certainly all republicans are far more conservative than he is.

There isn't a chance in hell that he will ever get any of those pie in the sky things done that he wants to, only modest versions at best, and then, only if he learned to compromise vigorously on things like immigration and foreign policy.

Simply put, he would probably just do a better job on some of things Trump had originally promised to do for the poor and middle class, but has since failed to deliver on.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you support socialism for the extreme wealthy, but not for the poor and working class?

Happy to eliminate socialism for wealthy, poor, and working, but why so afraid to tell us what socialism for the rich you are talking about?

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.
They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions, while poor do not even get to write off rent.
They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.
Many, many more.

Socialism for the rich include a lower tax rate, where they can pay themselves in stock options at the 20% capital gains rate.

View attachment 311149

2019-2020 Capital Gains Tax Rates & How to Avoid a Big Bill - NerdWallet

Looks like everyone gets lower capital gains rates.

They also get to write off mortgages and depreciation on mansions,

Capped at $10,000 a year.

They also get tax free benefits poor do not get, like employer health insurance.

Poor people don't get tax free employer health insurance? You're lying. Again.

No, poor people get paid in salary established by their employer, which is not tax exempt.
But the higher ups in the company can decide how to compensate themselves, so can instead of taking a cash salary, can opt to take their pay in stock options.
That allows them to avoid the normal tax rates we would pay, like 30%, and instead only pay 20%.
You can not pay capital gains rate on your salary normally.
Only the wealthy can arrange that.

And no, I do not believe real estate mortgage write off is capped that low.

'{...
Taxpayers can deduct the interest paid on first and second mortgages up to $1,000,000 in mortgage debt (the limit is $500,000 if married and filing separately).
..}
Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Calculator | Bankrate

And yes, poor people do not get employer heath insurance.
Even WalMart does not cover all health care for its employees.
Fast food has no coverage at all.

No, poor people get paid in salary established by their employer, which is not tax exempt.

No, poor people also get paid in healthcare benefits, which is tax exempt.

But the higher ups in the company can decide how to compensate themselves, so can instead of taking a cash salary, can opt to take their pay in stock options.

Stock options are taxable.

That allows them to avoid the normal tax rates we would pay, like 30%, and instead only pay 20%

30%? You earn more than $160,000? You're lying.

And no, I do not believe real estate mortgage write off is capped that low.

Sorry, state and local taxes capped at $10,000 write off.

Even WalMart does not cover all health care for its employees.

Who said all? LOL!

Wal Mart Health Insurance - Health Insurance Providers