Why socialism fails

[Votto]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to pass,,,but goddamn lets be real.

Matty, government does not = Socialism

The true definition of socialism is the government owning industry. But as Hitler pointed out, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?" That is the model of socialism governments around the world follow today. Hitler was truly a visionary. Hitler knew that the German people had risen up against their government during WW1 because of bad living conditions in Germany, so he lavished the people with a socialist state whose standard of living was better than in England or the US. Shrug, it worked. The war weary people were bought off and chose to ignore mass genocide as well. Money rules. It always has.

The issue is control. So long as collectivists have control they could care less what form of government it is.

 

[francoHFW]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to past,,,but goddamn lets be real.

With every law, regulation, tax, freedom wanes. That is why doing these things should be done with great trepidation. However, today the US government passes over 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. Now if you don't buy health care, which became the biggest tax hike on the middle class, you go to jail.

Is society better for it this year than last? Are we more moral? Are we better for it? No.

Governments are like stars. They just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen. They explode or implode and become a massive black hole that sucks in anything close to it and destroys it.

Is there an antidote for this? Maybe not. The Founding Fathers saw this problem and accordingly wrote a Bill of Rights that did nothing but restrict the freedom of government over the populace. Today's Progressives proudly call these "Negative rights". Instead of championing "Negative rights", they champion what is called "positive rights" Notice the psychology of terms, which Progressives are masters at. To limit the power of government you are labeled negative, and when empowering government you become positive.

The role of government should be to maintain a civil society, law and order, and let people live their lives.

Unless they want to have an abortion, smoke pot, join a union, or allthe things you nanny GOPers are against. Funny how the gov't grows the most under your brainwashers- they're lying disasters, dupes.

The abortion issue is a debate as to whether the unborn are actually human beings who have rights. Last I checked, no one believes that certain people should should not have a right to life and be killed without the protection from the state.

Why do you call me a GOPer? The GOP has played the same games as the DNC. The GOP champions a limited government at home and champion big government abroad. Conversely, the DNC champions big government at home but not abroad. However, at the end of the day, both end up supporting big government at home and abroad. After all, after you create the beast how on earth can you control it? You can't.

But you are correct, the GOP is full of hypocrisy, which is why the nation is on the verge of electing an avowed socialist. People have been conditioned to vote this way.

It's been a lot of the GOP pander to the rich and wreck the nonroich and the country.stuff too. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

 

[francoHFW]

View attachment 63134

"Obamacare is a disaster, we need it repealed."

No kidding Bernie.

I simply fail to see the appeal of the Democrat party anymore, especially after they have already "fixed" health care.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bernie never said that. He prefers single payer. So does any intelligent, well informed person. ACA has not been implemented yet, and you are totally misinformed.

It's like Denis Kucinich. He opposed Obamacare consistently UNTIL they needed his vote. Then he was called aboard Obama's plane and had a good "talking too".

After that, he voted for it.
Kucinich preached that Obamacare was simply a bail out for insurance companies, and how it would not reduce costs. He never took back those words, but voted for it anyway.

This is criminal. Now Progs like Kucinich want to force another system down our throats? Why on earth should we trust them?

You won't find anyone believing that with pre-existing or getting Medicaid. Kucinich want single payer, but ACA is ALL they could get. The GOP Plan lol. Single payer would save you money IMMEDIATELY.

 

[francoHFW]

I AM a socialist. Like the UK, France, Neth, Germany, Sweden, and NZ.

 

[Votto]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to past,,,but goddamn lets be real.

With every law, regulation, tax, freedom wanes. That is why doing these things should be done with great trepidation. However, today the US government passes over 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. Now if you don't buy health care, which became the biggest tax hike on the middle class, you go to jail.

Is society better for it this year than last? Are we more moral? Are we better for it? No.

Governments are like stars. They just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen. They explode or implode and become a massive black hole that sucks in anything close to it and destroys it.

Is there an antidote for this? Maybe not. The Founding Fathers saw this problem and accordingly wrote a Bill of Rights that did nothing but restrict the freedom of government over the populace. Today's Progressives proudly call these "Negative rights". Instead of championing "Negative rights", they champion what is called "positive rights" Notice the psychology of terms, which Progressives are masters at. To limit the power of government you are labeled negative, and when empowering government you become positive.

The role of government should be to maintain a civil society, law and order, and let people live their lives.

Unless they want to have an abortion, smoke pot, join a union, or allthe things you nanny GOPers are against. Funny how the gov't grows the most under your brainwashers- they're lying disasters, dupes.

The abortion issue is a debate as to whether the unborn are actually human beings who have rights. Last I checked, no one believes that certain people should should not have a right to life and be killed without the protection from the state.

Why do you call me a GOPer? The GOP has played the same games as the DNC. The GOP champions a limited government at home and champion big government abroad. Conversely, the DNC champions big government at home but not abroad. However, at the end of the day, both end up supporting big government at home and abroad. After all, after you create the beast how on earth can you control it? You can't.

But you are correct, the GOP is full of hypocrisy, which is why the nation is on the verge of electing an avowed socialist. People have been conditioned to vote this way.

It's been a lot of the GOP pander to the rich and wreck the nonroich and the country.stuff too. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

I never understood the minimum wage. Is anyone holding a gun to my head to work a job? Who says that working for below a minimum wage is "bad"? Let's suppose the person in question does not pay rent or a mortgage. They might be pocketing more money than a person who is making $100,000 a year. In addition, you are killing business that is needed to tax to help pay these massive deficits and debt.

 

[Votto]

View attachment 63134

"Obamacare is a disaster, we need it repealed."

No kidding Bernie.

I simply fail to see the appeal of the Democrat party anymore, especially after they have already "fixed" health care.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bernie never said that. He prefers single payer. So does any intelligent, well informed person. ACA has not been implemented yet, and you are totally misinformed.

It's like Denis Kucinich. He opposed Obamacare consistently UNTIL they needed his vote. Then he was called aboard Obama's plane and had a good "talking too".

After that, he voted for it.
Kucinich preached that Obamacare was simply a bail out for insurance companies, and how it would not reduce costs. He never took back those words, but voted for it anyway.

This is criminal. Now Progs like Kucinich want to force another system down our throats? Why on earth should we trust them?

You won't find anyone believing that with pre-existing or getting Medicaid. Kucinich want single payer, but ACA is ALL they could get. The GOP Plan lol. Single payer would save you money IMMEDIATELY.

Here is an idea. Why not let the states decide? If memory serves, MA had their own health care system under Romney. And guess what, the people of MA rose up and voted for Scott Brown, the first Republican elected in that state in about a century. And why did they elect him? They elected him because he ran on the premise of nixing Obamacare. The people of MA liked their system, so they sought to stop Obamacare. However, the democracy hating democrats prevented Brown from voting against it, which would have stopped it, by using Reconciliation, an unconstitutional procedure. And yes, I know, the GOP has used it before as well. Again, I don't give a damn about the GOP.

Another dirty little secret is, Kennedy, whom Scott Brown replaced, was dying from cancer and knew that an election that went to the GOP to replace him might stop Obamacare. So Kennedy tried to get the laws changed before he died in order to stop the democratic process, but failed.

So as we see, democrats despise democracy, which is why they are prone to collectivism. For you see, your voting power is diluted the more centralized the system is and the more out of tune they are as your representative.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to past,,,but goddamn lets be real.

With every law, regulation, tax, freedom wanes. That is why doing these things should be done with great trepidation. However, today the US government passes over 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. Now if you don't buy health care, which became the biggest tax hike on the middle class, you go to jail.

Is society better for it this year than last? Are we more moral? Are we better for it? No.

Governments are like stars. They just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen. They explode or implode and become a massive black hole that sucks in anything close to it and destroys it.

Is there an antidote for this? Maybe not. The Founding Fathers saw this problem and accordingly wrote a Bill of Rights that did nothing but restrict the freedom of government over the populace. Today's Progressives proudly call these "Negative rights". Instead of championing "Negative rights", they champion what is called "positive rights" Notice the psychology of terms, which Progressives are masters at. To limit the power of government you are labeled negative, and when empowering government you become positive.

The role of government should be to maintain a civil society, law and order, and let people live their lives.

Unless they want to have an abortion, smoke pot, join a union, or allthe things you nanny GOPers are against. Funny how the gov't grows the most under your brainwashers- they're lying disasters, dupes.

The abortion issue is a debate as to whether the unborn are actually human beings who have rights. Last I checked, no one believes that certain people should should not have a right to life and be killed without the protection from the state.

Why do you call me a GOPer? The GOP has played the same games as the DNC. The GOP champions a limited government at home and champion big government abroad. Conversely, the DNC champions big government at home but not abroad. However, at the end of the day, both end up supporting big government at home and abroad. After all, after you create the beast how on earth can you control it? You can't.

But you are correct, the GOP is full of hypocrisy, which is why the nation is on the verge of electing an avowed socialist. People have been conditioned to vote this way.

It's been a lot of the GOP pander to the rich and wreck the nonroich and the country.stuff too. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

Obama's been President the past 7 years, Mr. Van Winkle

 

[Votto]

I AM a socialist. Like the UK, France, Neth, Germany, Sweden, and NZ.

It's nice to be able to move to a socialist country or state if you wish to. So what about those in conservative states? Should they be allowed self determination or do they need reeducation centers so they can think the way you do? Why not let success of a given system be the motive for change rather than forcing people to do something as you demand it is better? Is competition that much of a threat to you?

 

[Votto]

 

[Rustic]

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

NOT COMMUNISM, ya gd functional MORONS. Ay caramba.

Same difference, dumbasses believe in horse shit that is socialism.
Lol

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

 

[Votto]

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

NOT COMMUNISM, ya gd functional MORONS. Ay caramba.

Same difference, dumbasses believe in horse shit that is socialism.
Lol

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

Bernie is trying to sell socialism based upon countries like Denmark.

Well Denmark is smaller than some US states, neither of which has to maintain a standing army to be the world's policeman for which US states and Denmark depend. In addition, the size of the economies of the US and these smaller European countries are not even close. Simply put, the more money and power the more corruption there is. The US has driven up the highest debt in human history, and they want them to take on more? The US is now forced to grow it's economy to pay for the massive debt it has created, not embrace socialism which will shrink the economy.

The Amish are a good example of how well socialism works. They may as well compare the Amish to the US federal government.

 

[francoHFW]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to past,,,but goddamn lets be real.

With every law, regulation, tax, freedom wanes. That is why doing these things should be done with great trepidation. However, today the US government passes over 40,000 new laws and regulations every year. Now if you don't buy health care, which became the biggest tax hike on the middle class, you go to jail.

Is society better for it this year than last? Are we more moral? Are we better for it? No.

Governments are like stars. They just keep getting bigger, and bigger, and bigger, until one of two things happen. They explode or implode and become a massive black hole that sucks in anything close to it and destroys it.

Is there an antidote for this? Maybe not. The Founding Fathers saw this problem and accordingly wrote a Bill of Rights that did nothing but restrict the freedom of government over the populace. Today's Progressives proudly call these "Negative rights". Instead of championing "Negative rights", they champion what is called "positive rights" Notice the psychology of terms, which Progressives are masters at. To limit the power of government you are labeled negative, and when empowering government you become positive.

The role of government should be to maintain a civil society, law and order, and let people live their lives.

Unless they want to have an abortion, smoke pot, join a union, or allthe things you nanny GOPers are against. Funny how the gov't grows the most under your brainwashers- they're lying disasters, dupes.

The abortion issue is a debate as to whether the unborn are actually human beings who have rights. Last I checked, no one believes that certain people should should not have a right to life and be killed without the protection from the state.

Why do you call me a GOPer? The GOP has played the same games as the DNC. The GOP champions a limited government at home and champion big government abroad. Conversely, the DNC champions big government at home but not abroad. However, at the end of the day, both end up supporting big government at home and abroad. After all, after you create the beast how on earth can you control it? You can't.

But you are correct, the GOP is full of hypocrisy, which is why the nation is on the verge of electing an avowed socialist. People have been conditioned to vote this way.

It's been a lot of the GOP pander to the rich and wreck the nonroich and the country.stuff too. After 30 years of Voodoo: worst min. wage, work conditions, illegal work safeguards, vacations, work week, college costs, rich/poor gap, upward social mobility, % homeless and in prison EVAH, and in the modern world!!

I never understood the minimum wage. Is anyone holding a gun to my head to work a job? Who says that working for below a minimum wage is "bad"? Let's suppose the person in question does not pay rent or a mortgage. They might be pocketing more money than a person who is making $100,000 a year. In addition, you are killing business that is needed to tax to help pay these massive deficits and debt.

People have to take those jobs and then CAN"T PAY SHYYT.

 

[francoHFW]

lol, another dumb post.

So you don't like being taxed for the road you drive on?
You don't like regulations that keep our air, water and food clean, fresh and disease free?
You think we shouldn't ever invest into the betterment of our nation???

Of course, if we spend all the money or tax the producer too much what you say may come to pass,,,but goddamn lets be real.

Matty, government does not = Socialism

In all modern countries, it is now. about 15 of them. It's the highest form of government, AND IT AIN"T FECKING COMMUNISM lol.

 

[francoHFW]

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

NOT COMMUNISM, ya gd functional MORONS. Ay caramba.

Same difference, dumbasses believe in horse shit that is socialism.
Lol

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

Bernie is trying to sell socialism based upon countries like Denmark.

Well Denmark is smaller than some US states, neither of which has to maintain a standing army to be the world's policeman for which US states and Denmark depend. In addition, the size of the economies of the US and these smaller European countries are not even close. Simply put, the more money and power the more corruption there is. The US has driven up the highest debt in human history, and they want them to take on more? The US is now forced to grow it's economy to pay for the massive debt it has created, not embrace socialism which will shrink the economy.

The Amish are a good example of how well socialism works. They may as well compare the Amish to the US federal government.

Population has nothing to do with it, actually, but what about Japan, Germany, or France or UK? Spurious argument.

 

[Votto]

"We're all socialists now!"- Finland PM when ACA passed.

NOT COMMUNISM, ya gd functional MORONS. Ay caramba.

Same difference, dumbasses believe in horse shit that is socialism.
Lol

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

Bernie is trying to sell socialism based upon countries like Denmark.

Well Denmark is smaller than some US states, neither of which has to maintain a standing army to be the world's policeman for which US states and Denmark depend. In addition, the size of the economies of the US and these smaller European countries are not even close. Simply put, the more money and power the more corruption there is. The US has driven up the highest debt in human history, and they want them to take on more? The US is now forced to grow it's economy to pay for the massive debt it has created, not embrace socialism which will shrink the economy.

The Amish are a good example of how well socialism works. They may as well compare the Amish to the US federal government.

Population has nothing to do with it, actually, but what about Japan, Germany, or France or UK? Spurious argument.

The population dictates how much the pot of money they collect is for socialism. The larger the pot of money, the more corrupt the system potentially is.

Also, the larger the population the less control voters have over those who are running things. If you were voting, would your vote count more if there were 100 people in the country or 1 million? Also, representative in far away Washington DC are not as good of a representative as those in your state. Those who live where you do are more accessible and are more apt to fulfill your needs. And lastly, who can attend to individual needs of all 50 states better than the representatives of those given states? Face it, population size matters when it comes to representation. The more local your representatives are the more of a voice you have. So socialism within a given community or state is more preferable to the massive federal model Bernie wishes to impose on us all.

If you had not noticed, the country is divided. Is it preferable to force half the country your direction or is self determination with the power of the vote better? Do you or do you not advocate democracy?

 

[imawhosure]

Same difference, dumbasses believe in horse shit that is socialism.
Lol

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

Bernie is trying to sell socialism based upon countries like Denmark.

Well Denmark is smaller than some US states, neither of which has to maintain a standing army to be the world's policeman for which US states and Denmark depend. In addition, the size of the economies of the US and these smaller European countries are not even close. Simply put, the more money and power the more corruption there is. The US has driven up the highest debt in human history, and they want them to take on more? The US is now forced to grow it's economy to pay for the massive debt it has created, not embrace socialism which will shrink the economy.

The Amish are a good example of how well socialism works. They may as well compare the Amish to the US federal government.

Population has nothing to do with it, actually, but what about Japan, Germany, or France or UK? Spurious argument.

The population dictates how much the pot of money they collect is for socialism. The larger the pot of money, the more corrupt the system potentially is.

Also, the larger the population the less control voters have over those who are running things. If you were voting, would your vote count more if there were 100 people in the country or 1 million? Also, representative in far away Washington DC are not as good of a representative as those in your state. Those who live where you do are more accessible and are more apt to fulfill your needs. And lastly, who can attend to individual needs of all 50 states better than the representatives of those given states? Face it, population size matters when it comes to representation. The more local your representatives are the more of a voice you have. So socialism within a given community or state is more preferable to the massive federal model Bernie wishes to impose on us all.

If you had not noticed, the country is divided. Is it preferable to force half the country your direction or is self determination with the power of the vote better? Do you or do you not advocate democracy?

Great dissertation Votto. Pretty accurate also.

QUESTION-------------> Which Presidential candidate does someone want to give their trust in to create a path in their lives? Which one do you trust to turn over vast amounts of your income to guide it for you to do the best it can do?

And then--------> suppose you have someone in mind, lol. OK, let us say he/she is a saint, and do exactly what you want. He/she lasts 4 or 8 years, the system is now in place, where are you going to get the next one?

All of us, from both sides, have seen our Presidents. Some we all love, some we all think stink, and some of us are divided on what we think of each of them. So, put this WONDERFUL system in place, then what happens if the dopple ganger of the worst President you believe has ever been in office comes along. Under our current system, theoretically they can be controlled. Under the system of socialism being advocated here, they will have a free hand to do what they wish far more easily.

Socialists need to remember 1 absolute truth! Just because the money is collected in taxes to pay for this, that, and the other; it never really goes into that account, it goes into THE GENERAL FUND. Doubt me? Think Social Security. How did they pull off spending that money, and replacing it with IOUs, lol.

There is NEVER enough money for government, EVER! Has anyone ever thought if we could balance the budget IF we had no interest on the debt? How did we get that debt?

Leftists will point to wars. OK, lets deduct 6 trillion dollars for wars, just for the sake of debate. The debt will soon be 20 trillion. Where did the other 14 come from? Want to make it 8 trillion for wars? OK, how did we get the other 12 then?

See, the whole point is-------------> we can't sustain what we already do! A lefty debate to raise taxes to pay for what we have is a good debate. But to suggest we raise taxes to pay for MORE, then believe they can do it when they haven't done it in forever is madness.

And so again I ask..........who do you trust to run your life with your money? Yep, these politicians from either side of the aisle have done a bang up job, haven't they! And yet, we have some people who actually believe that this time will be different, it is their candidate, they are brilliant! Sure they all are, and I have some swampland in Florida I will sell you too!

 

[Wildman]

todays "American Socialism" is mostly due to when parents started about 50 years ago giving their kids everything they wanted, now after 2 or 3 generations todays kids expect Mommy and Daddy Gvmt. give them everything they want.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Socialism reduces the gap between rich and poor. Conservatives would prefer a system that allows the rich and powerful to make that gap as wide as they wish.

 

[Rustic]

and you think is communism...against all evidence and facts. WTH is wrong with you chumps. see sig

The more socialist this country becomes, millions more people suffer the living hell that is socialism...

Bernie is trying to sell socialism based upon countries like Denmark.

Well Denmark is smaller than some US states, neither of which has to maintain a standing army to be the world's policeman for which US states and Denmark depend. In addition, the size of the economies of the US and these smaller European countries are not even close. Simply put, the more money and power the more corruption there is. The US has driven up the highest debt in human history, and they want them to take on more? The US is now forced to grow it's economy to pay for the massive debt it has created, not embrace socialism which will shrink the economy.

The Amish are a good example of how well socialism works. They may as well compare the Amish to the US federal government.

Population has nothing to do with it, actually, but what about Japan, Germany, or France or UK? Spurious argument.

The population dictates how much the pot of money they collect is for socialism. The larger the pot of money, the more corrupt the system potentially is.

Also, the larger the population the less control voters have over those who are running things. If you were voting, would your vote count more if there were 100 people in the country or 1 million? Also, representative in far away Washington DC are not as good of a representative as those in your state. Those who live where you do are more accessible and are more apt to fulfill your needs. And lastly, who can attend to individual needs of all 50 states better than the representatives of those given states? Face it, population size matters when it comes to representation. The more local your representatives are the more of a voice you have. So socialism within a given community or state is more preferable to the massive federal model Bernie wishes to impose on us all.

If you had not noticed, the country is divided. Is it preferable to force half the country your direction or is self determination with the power of the vote better? Do you or do you not advocate democracy?

Great dissertation Votto. Pretty accurate also.

QUESTION-------------> Which Presidential candidate does someone want to give their trust in to create a path in their lives? Which one do you trust to turn over vast amounts of your income to guide it for you to do the best it can do?

And then--------> suppose you have someone in mind, lol. OK, let us say he/she is a saint, and do exactly what you want. He/she lasts 4 or 8 years, the system is now in place, where are you going to get the next one?

All of us, from both sides, have seen our Presidents. Some we all love, some we all think stink, and some of us are divided on what we think of each of them. So, put this WONDERFUL system in place, then what happens if the dopple ganger of the worst President you believe has ever been in office comes along. Under our current system, theoretically they can be controlled. Under the system of socialism being advocated here, they will have a free hand to do what they wish far more easily.

Socialists need to remember 1 absolute truth! Just because the money is collected in taxes to pay for this, that, and the other; it never really goes into that account, it goes into THE GENERAL FUND. Doubt me? Think Social Security. How did they pull off spending that money, and replacing it with IOUs, lol.

There is NEVER enough money for government, EVER! Has anyone ever thought if we could balance the budget IF we had no interest on the debt? How did we get that debt?

Leftists will point to wars. OK, lets deduct 6 trillion dollars for wars, just for the sake of debate. The debt will soon be 20 trillion. Where did the other 14 come from? Want to make it 8 trillion for wars? OK, how did we get the other 12 then?

See, the whole point is-------------> we can't sustain what we already do! A lefty debate to raise taxes to pay for what we have is a good debate. But to suggest we raise taxes to pay for MORE, then believe they can do it when they haven't done it in forever is madness.

And so again I ask..........who do you trust to run your life with your money? Yep, these politicians from either side of the aisle have done a bang up job, haven't they! And yet, we have some people who actually believe that this time will be different, it is their candidate, they are brilliant! Sure they all are, and I have some swampland in Florida I will sell you too!

This is true, it can't be sustained...
And that does not even include the 800 pound gorilla in the room... Unfunded liabilities - at very least 125+ trillion. Some say as high as 200+ trillion, there is not close to that much money in all of the world let alone here in the states to pay all of this shit off.
We are just putting off the inevitable, for how long? 20 years, 50?
So can socialism pull this off?? Well, it has never worked the hundreds times it has been tried before. Why will this time be any different?? Socialism is doomed to failure because it always runs out of other people's money then turns into a dictatorships. Face it we as a country have let our career politicians run the federal government out of money, no two ways about it - decades in the making. We can argue all day what is the cause of it, wars, socialist entitlement programs, no it's the whole attitude of socialism passing the buck on to someone else, and thinking it's OK. The whole concept of socialism is naïve, childish and petty...

 

[Votto]

Socialism reduces the gap between rich and poor. Conservatives would prefer a system that allows the rich and powerful to make that gap as wide as they wish.

Yea, under Stalin the Soviets had a much reduced gap between rich and poor.

Thanks for that.