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

[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.

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.

You're simply not a bright kid.

When you spend "more" than you take in you're losing money. It is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

 

[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.

You're simply not a bright kid.

When you spend "more" than you take in you're losing money. It is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

Nope, it's not. Let me know when you get it.

 

[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.

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.

If the Feds increased the deficit to build a bridge that would allow new businesses to flourish wouldn't that be the same thing? If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think.

 

[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.

If the Feds increased the deficit to build a bridge that would allow new businesses to flourish wouldn't that be the same thing? If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think.

" If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think. "

So the Feds would "borrow" money and give the money they took from the taxpayer BACK to the taxpayer which the taxpayer in the end has to pay back to the Feds? You go with that counselor.

 

[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.

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.

If the Feds increased the deficit to build a bridge that would allow new businesses to flourish wouldn't that be the same thing? If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think.

" If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think. "

So the Feds would "borrow" money and give the money they took from the taxpayer BACK to the taxpayer which the taxpayer in the end has to pay back to the Feds? You go with that counselor.

I was describing Trump's tax cuts. He cut taxes but not spending.

 

[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.

If the Feds increased the deficit to build a bridge that would allow new businesses to flourish wouldn't that be the same thing? If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think.

" If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think. "

So the Feds would "borrow" money and give the money they took from the taxpayer BACK to the taxpayer which the taxpayer in the end has to pay back to the Feds? You go with that counselor.

I was describing Trump's tax cuts. He cut taxes but not spending.

NOBODY EVER cuts spending.

 

[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.

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.

You're simply not a bright kid.

When you spend "more" than you take in you're losing money. It is NOT a hard concept to grasp.

Nope, it's not. Let me know when you get it.

Son I got it with your first post. You're simply an intellectual light weight.

 

[Leo123]

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?

OK I get it. However, I have a slightly different take. Those agencies provide a service to the American public. They are not socialist they are simply agencies we have all agreed to pay for at a premium precisely because they are government entities. Anyone with any brains knows that any time we pay government to do anything there will always be a premium because government administration is the most inefficient way to go.

That being said, programs like welfare, WIC, and all the other income redistribution programs not only cost billions but are socialist. IOW any program that takes money from the working taxpayer in order to give money to people that haven't actually earned it is the true definition of socialism. It's bad enough we have to pay premiums for shoddy infrastructure but to pay premiums to give others money they do not deserve is down right evil and socialist to the n'th degree.

 

[candycorn]

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?

Trump gave the farmers $24Billion in aid (on top of their yearly subsidies). Was that bit of vivid socialism a failure?

 

[candycorn]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

 

[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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

 

[candycorn]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

Correct. The OP seems to want it both ways. Government agencies (the USPS is mentioned in the constitution) are not meant to be money making operations. Thinking so comes from an incredibly simple mind--as exhibited by the OP--that "hey, since I buy stamps, the USPS is in the business of making money!"

 

[WelfareQueen]

No Government socialist program works period. No one has ever called the military socialist. Both stupid and ridiculous.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

 

[Likkmee]

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?

The US Postal Service is socialism? I guess the founding fathers must have been socialists

In all seriousness though, the things you mention are not socialism. They are simply government intervention.

Amtrak now does functions that were once the chartered obligations of the railroad corporations. See, the federal governemnt gifted land to these companies, which the companies were then able to use as security for loans, which the railroad tycoons alternately used for either legitimate railroad building or to feather their own person nests (Credit Mobilier, etc). But a century later, congress--in it's infinite corruption--relieved the railroads of the chartered obligation of carrying passengers, and created Amtrak to take its place.

I must give credit to the USPS, in my experiences. I shipped fresh fruit and live koi/goldfish/cichlids and puppies all over the US. They fucked up a little and immediately fixed the fuckups. Like pup accidentally winds up in WA instead of NC and gets the first flight out of there to the correct destination. They had a guy clean the cage, walk, give water and maintained contact via telephone(their//my nickel) Very professional. Had some koi on an 18 plus hour flight from Japan to Miami via Houston....wound up in Minnesota. I gave the name of a guy and they called him to replenish the oxygen and reseal the bags.They got to me in good shape. Good times back before the M-pyre was a piece of shit like it is today.
Fucking fourth world shithole. Most of you idiots can't even travel to where I live.

 

[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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

 

[WelfareQueen]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

 

[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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

 

[WelfareQueen]

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

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?