CDZ What Socialist Policies in the U.S. Have Ever Worked?

[Grumblenuts]

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance.

You mean the interstate highway system? States and counties still build and maintain lots of roads.

 

[alang1216]

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance.

You mean the interstate highway system? States and counties still build and maintain lots of roads.

Don't states and counties have governments?

 

[Cellblock2429]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

/——/ I agree with everything except the USPS. They are hamstrung by Congressional rules about front loading pensions and forcing them to keep under used post offices open, not letting them stop Saturday deliveries. Unless that is what you mean by Socialism. I believe they could be profitable like FedEx and UPS if the Gubmint got out of the way.

I change my mind, you’re 100% correct on all points including #1.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance.

You mean the interstate highway system? States and counties still build and maintain lots of roads.

Don't states and counties have governments?

Yes, but they do plenty of the work themselves rather than contracting it all out, which I'm not even sure the federal government does completely yet.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Virginia DOT worker

Like Pennsylvania, a "Commonwealth" (Commie pinko socialist snowflakes, every last one)

 

[Dick Foster]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

Lol, they aren't. All added together they don't even approach military spending. We spend more on that than every other nation combined. That's what's bankrupting the nation.

 

[Cellblock2429]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

Lol, they aren't. All added together they don't even approach military spending. We spend more on that than every other nation combined. That's what's bankrupting the nation.

/—-/ Do you agree with Trump pressuring NATO nations to paying their fair share to reduce our military spending?

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

Lol, they aren't. All added together they don't even approach military spending. We spend more on that than every other nation combined. That's what's bankrupting the nation.

/—-/ Do you agree with Trump pressuring NATO nations to paying their fair share to reduce our military spending?

Do you agree that it was Obama who started that?

Besides, that doesn't reduce our commitment.

 

[WelfareQueen]

So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

No, they are social programs. They don't convey the means of production to the gov't they are the governments attempt at shaping the future of America. You may or may not approve of that future, that is your right.

A case can be made for the long-term cost savings of the Green New Deal but I'll leave that to others. There is a strong case that Medicare for all will result in major cost savings to consumers, depending on how it is implemented. Healthcare is a cost we already pay along with profits for insurance and drug companies so there are plenty of opportunities for cost savings there.

Obamacare was supposed to result in savings as well, remember? I think Obama said $3,000 per family. How did that work out. That is a perfect example of a socialist run shit for brains Government program.

 

[Dick Foster]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

Lol, they aren't. All added together they don't even approach military spending. We spend more on that than every other nation combined. That's what's bankrupting the nation.

Well if you feel so friggin uncomfortable living under the protection of our big bad mean old military you could always leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Maybe you'd find things more to your liking in North Korea or some shit where they spend over half of their pathetic GDP on their military who's mostly in business keep their own people held captive.

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

And they weren't supposed to ruin and bankrupt the nation either, shitforbrains.

Lol, they aren't. All added together they don't even approach military spending. We spend more on that than every other nation combined. That's what's bankrupting the nation.

Well if you feel so friggin uncomfortable living under the protection of our big bad mean old military you could always leave and don't let the door hit you in the ass. Maybe you'd find things more to your liking in North Korea or some shit where they spend over half of their pathetic GDP on their military who's mostly in business keep their own people held captive.

Cool straw man, but it doesn't mean anything.

 

[alang1216]

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance.

You mean the interstate highway system? States and counties still build and maintain lots of roads.

Don't states and counties have governments?

Yes, but they do plenty of the work themselves rather than contracting it all out, which I'm not even sure the federal government does completely yet.

I don't know the answers but my hope would be all new construction is done under contract while minor maintenance may be done more efficiently by gov't workers. Those should be minimal.

 

[alang1216]

So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

No, they are social programs. They don't convey the means of production to the gov't they are the governments attempt at shaping the future of America. You may or may not approve of that future, that is your right.

A case can be made for the long-term cost savings of the Green New Deal but I'll leave that to others. There is a strong case that Medicare for all will result in major cost savings to consumers, depending on how it is implemented. Healthcare is a cost we already pay along with profits for insurance and drug companies so there are plenty of opportunities for cost savings there.

Obamacare was supposed to result in savings as well, remember? I think Obama said $3,000 per family. How did that work out. That is a perfect example of a socialist run shit for brains Government program.

Actually it went pretty well.

The CBO report said the ACA reduced the budget deficit by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019. ... But most of Obamacare's savings come from making sure 95% of U.S. citizens had health insurance. It reduced health care costs by making preventive health care affordable for the 33 million who had no coverage.

 

[JustAGuy1]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

" They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on "

LOL, too funny. Semantics are for truly weak people.


Definition of lose money

: to spend more money than one earnsThe company has been losing money for the past several years.

 

[alang1216]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

" They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on "

LOL, too funny. Semantics are for truly weak people.


Definition of lose money

: to spend more money than one earnsThe company has been losing money for the past several years.

I borrowed more money than I had to buy a house. Best INVESTMENT of my life.

 

[JustAGuy1]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

" They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on "

LOL, too funny. Semantics are for truly weak people.


Definition of lose money

: to spend more money than one earnsThe company has been losing money for the past several years.

I borrowed more money than I had to buy a house. Best INVESTMENT of my life.

The definition of losing money is spending more than you bring in. Your post is buying a house has nothing to do with losing money in this situation you obviously could afford the payments.

 

[WelfareQueen]

So the the Green New Deal and Medicare for all will cost trillions because it's "spending." They are designed to cost trillions with no hope of recovering the money.

And yes, they are most definitely socialist programs.

No, they are social programs. They don't convey the means of production to the gov't they are the governments attempt at shaping the future of America. You may or may not approve of that future, that is your right.

A case can be made for the long-term cost savings of the Green New Deal but I'll leave that to others. There is a strong case that Medicare for all will result in major cost savings to consumers, depending on how it is implemented. Healthcare is a cost we already pay along with profits for insurance and drug companies so there are plenty of opportunities for cost savings there.

Obamacare was supposed to result in savings as well, remember? I think Obama said $3,000 per family. How did that work out. That is a perfect example of a socialist run shit for brains Government program.

Actually it went pretty well.

The CBO report said the ACA reduced the budget deficit by $143 billion between 2010 and 2019. ... But most of Obamacare's savings come from making sure 95% of U.S. citizens had health insurance. It reduced health care costs by making preventive health care affordable for the 33 million who had no coverage.

What utter, complete horseshit. Obama care as I stated was supposed to reduced health care costs by $3,000 dollars per family according to Obama and Biden. The truth is health care costs increased $5,000 per family.

You neatly avoiding my point is telling. Obama care is the perfect definition of a failed socialist run Government program.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Our road system works because it is built to a single, government standard and is free to all vehicles. The government owns the roads and sets standards but, rightly contracts out the building and maintenance.

You mean the interstate highway system? States and counties still build and maintain lots of roads.

Don't states and counties have governments?

Yes, but they do plenty of the work themselves rather than contracting it all out, which I'm not even sure the federal government does completely yet.

I don't know the answers but my hope would be all new construction is done under contract while minor maintenance may be done more efficiently by gov't workers. Those should be minimal.

Not 100% firm either, but.. I'd say the contract bidding processes should be open, fully transparent, and overseen by disinterested third parties. All federal contracts (at a minimum) should require union labor as well. This could serve as a basis for a serious topic, unlike this turd.

 

[Crepitus]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

" They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on "

LOL, too funny. Semantics are for truly weak people.


Definition of lose money

: to spend more money than one earnsThe company has been losing money for the past several years.

So when you go buy a hamburger you lost money?

Get with the program, kid. I don't have time to go over all of this crap twice.