# What's your stance on socialism?



## Taleweaver (Feb 24, 2020)

I admit I'm hesitant to post this, but I'm honestly curious, and it's certainly a relevant item nowadays. Reason: Bernie Sanders has currently established a wide advantage over his democratic rivals. So...there's that.

Bernie Sanders is also a socialist, which is pretty uncommon (if not to say: extremely rare) in the United States. And from what I can tell: just about unique.

So let's start with some simple politics: what is socialism, exactly? Well...google defines it (correctly) as "_any system in which the production and distribution of goods and services *is* a shared responsibility of a group of people._"  

Whether it's something for you is something I've been described with bread. My apologies if I don't recall it correctly, but it was something like this:



> A bread has been baked. Who owns it?
> 
> Communism: the state in which the bread was baked
> Socialism: the baker, the baker boy and anyone else who helped baking it
> ...



At the very least, it illustrates the difference between communism and socialism (I've seen Americans who couldn't tell the difference but thought they knew what it meant regardless). But even so, there's some differences in how to pursue it. For simplicity's sake (and because I'm no expert on the matter, though I'm a half-assed socialist myself  ) I'll put them on a sliding scale between what I would call "Scandinavian socialism" and "Fox news socialism".

Scandinavian socialism is the kind practiced in Finland, Sweden and Denmark. It has a strong state that is in service to its citizens. It has strong worker unions, taxes that redistribute the wealth to those who need it most and things like universal health care. I've read that it's the type Sanders seeks to implement, but I've got to admit I'm not too familiar with his plans yet at this point.
Fox news socialism seeks to eliminate all personal possessions and put a strong emphasis on taxes (especially estate taxes) to the point where every yahoo has the same benefits as those working their asses off each day. I call it that because it's the kind fox news conjures when they describe socialism.

...but since fox viewers aren't going to consider voting Bernie, I'll kindly ignore them for this thread (okay, okay: I'll give them a voting option  ).

So...what are your opinions?


I'd say "please no flaming", but I suspect it'll be unavoidable after some pages.  Still: please no flaming.


----------



## erikas (Feb 24, 2020)

I think at this point Trump will be getting 4 more years regardelss of what democrats do.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 24, 2020)

In the bread example you provide, on the capitalist end of the spectrum the bread is owned by the baker in all instances unless the baker themself is an employee of a larger body that provides them the resources to make the bread. They have the option of selling the bread or giving it away, but otherwise only crime or the use of force can take that bread away from them.

Tangentially, I will say this to Trump voters: Underestimate Bernie at your peril. Complacency and arrogance were the factors that allowed to Trump to cause the upset he did in the first place. The irony of falling into that trap now would be enormous.


----------



## Jaxom (Feb 24, 2020)

From what I could say from France, a bit of socialism could benefit to the USA, as for every way of dealing with society, it has to be done with balance in mind. Socialism is based on redistributing money to protect the less wealthy, but I think too much socialism can kill the will of certain people to work.

I heard a large panel of elders saying that the decades of socialism in France helped creating a society of assisted peoples with no will of working or doing things outside their immediate reach (understand => a couch). As I wasn't born in these years, I can only tell about what I saw and heard, but I've already seen some people abusing the system.

Unfortunately, our current president seems eager to destroy everything done by socialism and social manifestations, but this could throw many peoples in the reaches of poverty. That's what the "Yellow Jackets" are fighting for, protecting the poorest from being totally abandoned by the system. I'm not fond of politic, but I can understand people willing to protect their elders, family, friends, neighbors or even strangers from that. What our government isn't willing to see... What a "project" for our country...


----------



## Eredhel (Feb 24, 2020)

I wouldn't vote for a socialist party, based on what they did here in Latin America for these past 20 years. And I know how to manage my own money, I don't trust any politician with my property. But anyway, I should not extend my vision on this matter since I'm a libertarian and some might see me as an extremist (Hermann Hoppe Libertarian, I mean)


----------



## CORE (Feb 24, 2020)

Basic Human rights...

Free Health Care. 
Food in Belly. 
Roof OverHead. 
Clothes on Back. 
Income enough to get you by. 
Thrift Stores and Refurbished Goods. 

Want A Better Life Work For It just like everyone else. 

That my views on Socialism excluding the corrupt elites trying to sell it for they're own personal gain a better world is possible.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 24, 2020)

_Socialism: the baker, the baker boy and anyone else who helped baking it_
This is incomplete. You forgot the essential role of the government in the socialist system, which decides how much bread is produced, how it is produced, and how much it will sell for on the market. They also assign a percentage of ownership that is arbitrary, but enough to maintain their power.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 24, 2020)

Bernie is a social democrat, not a socialist. It's a "social when it makes sense, a fair and human-centered free-market when that makes sense" perspective. So think FDR and the new deal, because that's what we're talking about here.

It helps pointing out we already have a lot of socialism. Firefighters, for example. We used to have to pay a fee to local fire fighters a long long time ago. If you didn't pay that month, they would literally just watch your house burn instead of save it. After some folks died, they figured it was dumb and unethical to apply the free market to fighting fires, and so now they're a public service rather than a function of the free market. That's social democracy.

Good rule of thumb, something that's a "public service" can be thought of as a socialist thing, as far as this topic is concerned. Roads, public education, etc, are at least partly socialist in how they function. I mean, when people say they hate socialism, i have to wonder where they're getting their misinformation or what they think it is.

Really, the issue in the states is one of non-transparency and corruption. Socialist ideals are perfectly fine, just as the free-market with a level playing field is perfectly fine, it's just about ensuring the power resides with the informed people and not corporations or super rich or unnacountable/hidden people in government. Both methods should be used, where it makes sense, and corporations/the super rich shouldn't be in charge of deciding when it does make sense. That's Bernie's platform, basically.

By the way, bernie is also fighting for the stuff other people claim they're doing but aren't. To "drain the swamp" made larger and deadlier by many of those in power, and for common sense (read:human-focused decisions) to lead the way rather than petulance or profit. So. Yeah. Go social democrat.



Eredhel said:


> I wouldn't vote for a socialist party, based on what they did here in Latin America for these past 20 years. And I know how to manage my own money, I don't trust any politician with my property. But anyway, I should not extend my vision on this matter since I'm a libertarian and some might see me as an extremist (Hermann Hoppe Libertarian, I mean)


Latin America has corruption issues. Doesn't matter what system you have there, a corrupt one will be bad news. Blame the corruption and lack of strength the people have when it comes to government decisions.


----------



## Kraken_X (Feb 24, 2020)

I would look Bernie's policies, and not let the "Socialism" label cloud your judgement.  Fox news called Obama a socialist and he would be considered right of center in most countries. 

Small businesses in the USA struggle to provide healthcare to their employees, limiting their creation and growth.  Workers are forced to work for companies that they hate (or marriages they no longer want) just to keep health insurance.  When they actually use the health insurance, they are forced to go to specific in-network doctors and facilities, and then they still end up paying more out of pocket than they would if they lived in a country with no healthcare system at all.  If one of the doctors is out of network and sees them without their consent, they go bankrupt or lose their home.  More people die from preventable disease in the USA every day than from violent crime, terrorism and war combined.  People don't see the doctor when they are sick, because they don't have paid sick leave and can't afford the bill. 

Automation is going to eliminate most jobs in the coming decades, especially the low skill ones.  We need a way for people whose jobs have been eliminated to be retrained to do something else.  Getting a house worth of student loan debt isn't the way to achieve the American dream.  One of America's greatest advantages has been an intelligent population.  There is a reason why most of the major inventions started here.  But in the last few decades, the USA has lost that edge. 

Corruption is rampant.  Bribing congress is the #1 return on investment for most businesses, ahead of R&D and actually providing a product.  In virtually every industry, 2-3 companies dominate using advantages that they have given themselves through regulation and buying up any upcoming threat and killing it.  Under Trump, we lost Net Neutrality, and the number of cell phone carriers went from 4 to 3.  Fox news attacks all regulation, but in reality regulation is just a tool that can be good or bad, but has been wielded to benefit monopolies, not society. Because "money is speech, and larger companies have more speech".  

How do we pay for programs that actually benefit society like universal healthcare and free education?  The same way we paid for trillions of dollars in tax cuts for the 1% and decades of losing unprovoked wars.  About 10% of every paycheck goes directly to the military, which consists of more than 60% of all government spending (not including social security and medicare, which are subtracted separately).  Nobody besides Bernie is going to stand up the Military Industrial Complex and start using our tax dollars for things that actually benefit society.   

American democracy is about to collapse.  Trump is basically above the law.  The department of justice and the courts can't prosecute a sitting president and the Senate will not convict no matter what he does wrong.  He can pardon any of his underlings who get caught.  He is stacking the intelligence committees with yes-men that he can send to investigate his opponent and direct to ignore his wrongdoings.  He has already gutted the department of justice.  The only thing he is accountable to is our votes, and McConnell in the senate has blocked all bills to secure voting machines and prevent fraud in the election process.  If Trump gets another 4 years, the damage likely can not be undone.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 24, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> I admit I'm hesitant to post this, but I'm honestly curious, and it's certainly a relevant item nowadays. Reason: Bernie Sanders has currently established a wide advantage over his democratic rivals. So...there's that.
> 
> Bernie Sanders is also a socialist, which is pretty uncommon (if not to say: extremely rare) in the United States. And from what I can tell: just about unique.
> 
> ...


Your descriptions of Socialism and Capitalism is weird. It makes it seem like the Baker still owns the Bread after I buy it in Socialism. Its like me buying a Video game and Capcom still claims ownership, and 20 years after they come and take all my Capcom games because they say its mine I own it not you.

Or a different take on the way you describe it its like steps of process Bread goes through rather then the different systems. Like your description makes it seem like Socialism is one of the first steps in the ownership process Bread goes through, they Bake it they own it. Then Capitalism is the next process once ownership is relinquished from the Store owner when I purchase the Bread and it becomes mine to own and mine to eat. The store owner or Capcom can no longer claim its theirs and take it from me once I buy it.

Kind of like the scientific method, first step make a Hypothesis, next step do research. That's like your description of Socialism and Capitalism rather then distinguished them as different systems. First step is Socialism then next step is Capitalism.

Your not really doing a good job distinguishing the two in that grey box of yours.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 24, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> By the way, bernie is also fighting for the stuff other people claim they're doing but aren't. To "drain the swamp" made larger and deadlier by many of those in power, and for common sense to lead the way rather than petulance or profit. So. Yeah. Go social democrat.


Great response, although this 'common sense' line is low effort.


----------



## FGFlann (Feb 24, 2020)

SG854 said:


> Its like me buying a Video game and Capcom still claims ownership, and 20 years after and they come and take all my Capcom games because they say its mine I own it not you.


What should scare us all is that this is the potential reality of the modern digital video game market.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 24, 2020)

FGFlann said:


> What should scare us all is that this is the potential reality of the modern digital video game market.



Its like digital copies is like Socialism and Physical copies are Capitalism with his description. With digital games Sony claims ownership/Soicalism of those digital copies and can choose to close the digital store whenever they want, and once the store closes down you can no longer download the games. With capitalism physical game copies are yours to own and Sony can no longer shut down the store and prevent access to that game.

There are ways around it like making multiple copies to a hard drives so you wont loose it, just like eating the bread you purchase means the baker can no longer claim ownership since there is no bread existing to own, its in your digestive system. Unless they want to claim ownership on the brown stuff that comes out of my rear end. But that's how he describes the two systems in that grey box summary and I don't think are good descriptions.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 24, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> Bernie Sanders is also a socialist, which is pretty uncommon (if not to say: extremely rare) in the United States. And from what I can tell: just about unique.


This isn't really as revolutionary as you think it is.
The US has a system of 'checks and balances' that keeps these powers in check.
Also, as far as Sanders' economic policies, it is _congress_ that appropriates funds, not the president. The best Sanders can do is push a bill towards congress and hope for the best.


----------



## smf (Feb 24, 2020)

The people who demonize socialism are the ones who knowingly benefit from capitalism to the detriment of others. There are pros and cons to both of course.

No socialist is worse for America than Trump. People who voted for Trump deserve the swamp he's created.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 24, 2020)

smf said:


> The people who demonize socialism are the ones who knowingly benefit from capitalism to the detriment of others.


_Anyone_ who criticizes (demonizes) socialism _knowingly_ benefit from capitalism _to the detriment of others_? What!?
Come on, you're better than this. I'll give you a chance to edit.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 24, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> This isn't really as revolutionary as you think it is.
> The US has a system of 'checks and balances' that keeps these powers in check.
> Also, as far as Sanders' economic policies, it is _congress_ that appropriates funds, not the president. The best Sanders can do is push a bill towards congress and hope for the best.


Ya, some of his OP stuff is weird. Is it really unique in the States. We have a bunch of Social programs. So is Socialism all that rare in the states? The labeling of Sanders may be rare, but the execution of those policies isn't all that rare. The Difference is that U.S. handles it different then other countries, and Bernie wants to allocate more money to them and have more state dependence rather then independence, because he believes people are being prevented from being independent in our current system. Kind of like having a Hero to save us because we aren't strong enough to do this stuff on our own to tackle the big bad corporations, so we become dependent on this Hero, that's how he envisions it, him being that Hero. And the Political Parties in the states argue how much money must be allocated to these social programs through taxes.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 24, 2020)

i don't support any political party. All politicians are crooks. Corruption is everywhere. DONT TRUST THEM. I repeat... they're all corrupt. NO VOTE FOR THEM!!!


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 24, 2020)

azoreseuropa said:


> i don't support any political party. All politicians are crooks. Corruption is everywhere. DONT TRUST THEM. NONE!


While a bit crude, this is a welcomed response. 
We should _all_ be very critical of our political leaders, all of the time. We should hold them under great scrutiny and watch them under a microscope. They are, in fact, our _servants_ and our _representatives_.


----------



## spotanjo3 (Feb 24, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> While a bit crude, this is a welcomed response.
> We should _all_ be very critical of our political leaders, all of the time. We should hold them under great scrutiny and watch them under a microscope. They are, in fact, our _servants_ and our _representatives_.



What ? Are you kidding me ? Heck no. They are not our servants and our representatives. They ruin our lives.. Always was and always will be. Look at the cost of living and higher tax ? They are cruel!


----------



## smf (Feb 24, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> _Anyone_ who criticizes (demonizes) socialism _knowingly_ benefit from capitalism _to the detriment of others_? What!?
> Come on, you're better than this. I'll give you a chance to edit.



Criticism is different to demonizing.

If you extol the virtues of capitalism while making out socialism to be the worse idea ever, then you aren't being objective & that lack of objectivity comes from somewhere bad.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 24, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Great response, although this 'common sense' line is low effort.


Aye, but it's the language used as a reason to support the other guy. I'd prefer something more specific, but "common sense" seems to translate best with some folks.


----------



## SG854 (Feb 24, 2020)

If you look at the United States almost everyone supports Socialism through our Social Programs. That would be most peoples stance in the States. The are a few conservatives that want to get rid of all these programs completely. But almost everyone even quite a few conservatives believe some social help is welcomed. The Difference is how much and how far should we go, which can vary even in Conservatives.

The better question would be how far should we go with Socialism.


----------



## Taleweaver (Feb 25, 2020)

@Eredhel: I understand your concerns. Unfortunately, socialism can be corrupted in just as many ways (and perhaps more, though it's hard to say) as other political systems.

@0x3000027E : sorry: that's communism you're describing there.



Kraken_X said:


> I would look Bernie's policies, and not let the "Socialism" label cloud your judgement. Fox news called Obama a socialist and he would be considered right of center in most countries.


To be fair, Obamacare is a socialist idea. It is, however, just one idea. I can't say under which president firefighters became a public service rather than privatized unit(s), but that act in itself didn't make the president a socialist.
I got to agree that for the most part, Obama was centrist/right (to European norms...just because there's someone further on the right doesn't mean "center" means left).



SG854 said:


> Your descriptions of Socialism and Capitalism is weird. It makes it seem like the Baker still owns the Bread after I buy it in Socialism. Its like me buying a Video game and Capcom still claims ownership, and 20 years after they come and take all my Capcom games because they say its mine I own it not you.


Okay...I can see why you're confused, but I thank you not to take your own interpretation as truth, let alone something I say.
Lemme elaborate with your example: yes, at the time a video game is created, it is owned by capcom. Well...all capcom employees to the degree they worked on it, but you get the point. If copies are then sold, they change owner just like normal. The exception is the very strict, dystopian version that I dubbed "fox news socialism": there whatever is created is owned by _everyone_, not just capcom. It's the sort of situation Richard Stallman is trying to achieve: the idea that once software is written, it should be public property and the source code released. But again: not many pursue that political style.

The confusion is probably because of the description of capitalism. In theory, you could say that if you make something, you own it. But capitalism (to an extreme degree, but all the examples are clichés) assumes that everything has a price, and therefore is owned by the person wanting to pay the most for it.





SG854 said:


> Its like digital copies is like Socialism and Physical copies are Capitalism with his description. With digital games Sony claims ownership/Soicalism of those digital copies and can choose to close the digital store whenever they want, and once the store closes down you can no longer download the games. With capitalism physical game copies are yours to own and Sony can no longer shut down the store and prevent access to that game.


Again: you're totally wrong. Okay, okay: it's probably the same thinking mistake you made earlier, but it's still wrong. Software is just that: a good. How and when it is purchased and who owns it depends on the system, yes, but you're totally missing the analogy.
If a company wishes to maintain ownership of their software, that's mostly a liberal decision. It would have been a socialist idea if the game was still owned by the company (e.g. like free to play games) AND the decision to alter things were shared by every employee that work on the game.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 25, 2020)

Taleweaver said:


> @0x3000027E : sorry: that's communism you're describing there.


Sorry, no, and I'm not going to get into some bullshit debate about it. Thanks for your comment though.


----------



## Hanafuda (Feb 25, 2020)

Works out pretty good for ants and bees. For humans, not so much.


----------



## urherenow (Feb 25, 2020)

many things we do *could* be considered socialist. Military and its funding. Social Security. Medicare. But a line needs to be drawn. The constitution itself GUARANTEES A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Please, actually READ the constitution.

History shows that no completely socialist government/nation has survived. EVER. Just doesn't work. Look at our own welfare program. Many users DO NOT WANT A JOB. They will never do their share. They calculate that they will lose income by earning their own way, so "why"?

Trump has made it incredibly easy to get a job. pick your job searching site. Thousands of listings at all times now. You can hate the person but you are simply blinded by that hate if you can't see how much good he's done for the country. Stop hating him just because the liberal media tells you to, and grow a damn brain.

And by the way, MANY regimes that started of with socialist ideals, end up being communist. Perhaps not all. But all fail.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 25, 2020)

urherenow said:


> Trump has made it incredibly easy to get a job. pick your job searching site


Well, I would argue that it was the so-called _impeachment trial_ that really got the economy moving. When congress is preoccupied with such matters (in this case, for over a year), they are not imposing further regulations/legislation, or granting trusts/monopolies, both of which slow the economy tremendously. Instead, as the impeachment trial wore on, the US consumer was beginning to get a taste of true free market practices. Companies were uninhibited. Investors became more willing to invest without the usual cloud of uncertainty, and competition was fair in the marketplace, (as there was no threatening legislation).

The same thing happened during the Clinton Impeachment trials: congress preoccupied with impeachment --> economy booms. It _started to _happen with Nixon impeachment, however it was short-lived.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 25, 2020)

Socialism is just "legal theft".  All it does is give the government and politicians sole power over wealth by stealing from those that have (you must realize that politicians are excluded from this) and gives to the have-nots that refuse to earn their own way of means.  That's why we have such a massive tax burden on our social services now such as welfare, social security, etc.  We have a bunch of freeloaders sucking off the teets of hard working citizens and the democrats just want to add to that burden with illegal immigration.

For example, just look at Bernie's idea of paying off college debt.  Everybody who was irresponsible enough to get student loans they were unable to pay, unwilling to work to pay them off, and are stuck with massive debt will be let off the hook by those that were smart about borrowing, worked hard to pay off their own debts, and did what was right.  

Paying for medicare for all is just going to take a massive chunk of your money that could be spent on other things like food, clothes, etc.  Instead, you will be forced to work more just to pay the tax burden for "free" healthcare that you would barely get to use due to the long waits and even crappier service.  I would rather be in medical debt, healthy, and alive then to have "free" health and die waiting for an operation months after I was diagnosed with something. 

If you are for socialism, then I would ask you to go out and get a real job where you have to work for what you have and then let people come off the street and take your stuff and money.  Then come back and tell me how great socialism is.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 25, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Socialism is just "legal theft".  All it does is give the government and politicians sole power over wealth by stealing from those that have (you must realize that politicians are excluded from this) and gives to the have-nots that refuse to earn their own way of means.  That's why we have such a massive tax burden on our social services now such as welfare, social security, etc.  We have a bunch of freeloaders sucking off the teets of hard working citizens and the democrats just want to add to that burden with illegal immigration.
> 
> For example, just look at Bernie's idea of paying off college debt.  Everybody who was irresponsible enough to get student loans they were unable to pay, unwilling to work to pay them off, and are stuck with massive debt will be let off the hook by those that were smart about borrowing, worked hard to pay off their own debts, and did what was right.
> 
> ...



Why is it whenever redistribution of wealth is discussed, welfare and social programs always get mentioned, yet no one mentions the _ridiculous_ amount of money that goes into paying the bloated salaries of the bureaucratic administrations that politicians surround themselves with? Everytime you see a politician give a speech, look behind them; Bureaucrats and lobbyists that each make well beyond 6-figures for doing absolutely nothing.

The issue shouldn't be "Where can we get more tax money?" (usual slogan from the Sanders camp). Instead, the public should _demand_ why more money is necessary to begin with. I think most would be surprised at how the tax money is actually distributed, and who collects the dividends.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 25, 2020)

0x3000027E said:


> Why is it whenever redistribution of wealth is discussed, welfare and social programs always get mentioned, yet no one mentions the _ridiculous_ amount of money that goes into paying the bloated salaries of the bureaucratic administrations that politicians surround themselves with? Everytime you see a politician give a speech, look behind them; Bureaucrats and lobbyists that each make well beyond 6-figures for doing absolutely nothing.
> 
> The issue shouldn't be "Where can we get more tax money?" (usual slogan from the Sanders camp). Instead, the public should _demand_ why more money is necessary to begin with. I think most would be surprised at how the tax money is actually distributed, and who collects the dividends.


It's the same reason why gang violence is never brought up with gun control debates.  Politicians screwing over the tax payers is a given.  
This is another reason socialism is bad.  Our social services need to privatized and taken away from the government bureaucrats as politicians are the last people we should trust with money.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

Some things work better socially. These are things where profit should not be the driving force, but humanitarian or social need.

Some things work better capitalistically. These are things where profit should be the main motivator, to ensure as many corners are cut as possible (with regulation making sure only the not-needed corners are cut, and the cuts don't infringe on humanitarian or social need).

Some things work best as a mix of the two, with capitalism providing the force, and socialism providing the heart and oversight
(This is glossing over things, there's more than just capitalism and socialism...but for the sake of...clarity, I'll limit it to these two. Notice, also, how neither of these are communism.)

To put it more generally, all decisions must be human-driven first and foremost if we're wanting to have a society that's worth anything. Maximize civil liberties and quality of life, and minimize outside control and effort required. This should be done with an eye toward ensuring what resources available to us are used as wisely as possible and with the least amount of destructive impact or collateral damage. Capitalism is great for ensuring minimal resources for a needed task, but as its goal is profit and not humanitarian, it has its drawbacks in its impact on the other things I just mentioned. *it's important to see capitalism as a tool to accomplish our goals*. It is not, in-fact, _the_ goal. So first and foremost, you've got to be able to explain what goal you, and we, want for a society and why. Then, understand the how and why capitalism helps with that goal, as well as -and I can't stress this enough- discuss what other tools may be needed to accomplish that goal.



urherenow said:


> many things we do *could* be considered socialist. Military and its funding. Social Security. Medicare. But a line needs to be drawn. The constitution itself GUARANTEES A REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT. Please, actually READ the constitution.
> 
> History shows that no completely socialist government/nation has survived. EVER. Just doesn't work. Look at our own welfare program. Many users DO NOT WANT A JOB. They will never do their share. They calculate that they will lose income by earning their own way, so "why"?
> 
> ...


who in the world is wanting a completely socialism-based government?

Also, the issue with welfare at the moment is as soon as you get a job, you're kicked off welfare. You work 40 hour weeks and bring home less money than when you were on welfare. This is why they say welfare is a trap. Why work 40 hours a week killing yourself when you're just going to be penalized for working hard and lose everything? We need a better system, like the UBI, where any effort you put in adds to your bank, rather than penalize you for it. Saves money and promotes people getting jobs and being productive members of society. Seriously, if you want people to get jobs, then the UBI is a good system to look at (look at Kurzgesagt's video) 



morvoran said:


> It's the same reason why gang violence is never brought up with gun control debates.  Politicians screwing over the tax payers is a given.
> This is another reason socialism is bad.  Our social services need to privatized and taken away from the government bureaucrats as politicians are the last people we should trust with money.


The US healthcare system is private. it's one of the worst in the world (except for the social-program based one, which is excellent). Our politicians currently work for the private sector in reality, though they're not suppose to. That's literally the problem which needs fixing.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> The US healthcare system is private. it's one of the worst in the world (except for the social-program based one, which is excellent).


 Where did you get this info?  From Wikipedia?  Just to let you know, in case you didn't, you are 100% wrong. 
We have people from these socialized healthcare countries coming here for medical procedures because we have the best doctors and they don't have to wait years to have the procedures done.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Where did you get this info?  From Wikipedia?  Just to let you know, in case you didn't, you are 100% wrong.
> We have people from these socialized healthcare countries coming here for medical procedures because we have the best doctors and they don't have to wait years to have the procedures done.


Super rich people. You have super rich people coming here for medical procedures. We're talking about needing a system which needs to support everyone, not just super wealthy people.

Again, this is profit-driven thinking and not human-driven thinking, which also contributes greatly to corruption among other things.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> Super rich people. You have super rich people coming here for medical procedures. We're talking about needing a system which needs to support everyone, not just super wealthy people.
> 
> Again, this is profit-driven thinking and not human-driven thinking, which also contributes greatly to corruption among other things.


. Poor people in the US already get free or very cheap healthcare.  They can either go to an emergency room or to health clinics for minor issues.  Both will help them a lot faster than socialized healthcare countries.
If Canada's healthcare is so great, why don't you hear stories of middle class/poor people going over there for health care?  Because they don't want to wait to be helped just to be cared for by an underpaid doctor.  The only reason anybody would go to Canada is for cheaper prescriptions which is what some elderly people do, but they'll be damned if they would go there for healthcare.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> . Poor people in the US already get free or very cheap healthcare.  They can either go to an emergency room or to health clinics for minor issues.  Both will help them a lot faster than socialized healthcare countries.
> If Canada's healthcare is so great, why don't you hear stories of middle class/poor people going over there for health care?  Because they don't want to wait to be helped just to be cared for by an underpaid doctor.  The only reason anybody would go to Canada is for cheaper prescriptions which is what some elderly people do, but they'll be damned if they would go there for healthcare.


...why do you think health clinics or emergency room visits are cheap or free? Why do you believe they get free or cheap healthcare? Where did you get this information?

American's don't participate in the canadian healthcare system because...they're not canadian. you have to be a canadian citizien/resident (they check your healthcard) or have some other arrangement, otherwise you pay the entirety of the bill. 

I lived there for a while. And they complain about the waiting, for sure...but when you explain how the american system works, they get really wide eyes and don't believe you that a system could be that moronic and anti-consumer. The reason they complain because they think there are ways to improve things, not because they think it's inferior to any other system. Seriously, bother asking and talking with a canadian about their healthcare system, and THEN ask them how they think it compares to the american system. Ask any informed canadian, they will tell you all the merits of their system, which far overshadows the annoyances (minus the specialist referrals, which is another ball of wax).


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> ...why do you think health clinics or emergency room visits are cheap or free? Why do you believe they get free or cheap healthcare? Where did you get this information?


 I didn't get that info from Wikipedia, that's how you should know I'm informed.
If you're homeless, you can go to the emergency room or clinic and get free healthcare.  They have to assist you but can't charge you if you don't have any way to pay.  If you're poor, you get government assistance which subsidizes your care.  This is common knowledge.



osaka35 said:


> American's don't participate in the canadian healthcare system because...they're not canadian. you have to be a canadian citizien/resident (they check your healthcard) or have some other arrangement, otherwise you pay the entirety of the bill.


. If you are an illegal immigrant, you can do the same as homeless people to get free healthcare in the US.  Are you saying that Canada won't allow the same for visitors?  Hmmm, that shouldn't sound better than our healthcare to any leftist or democrat.



osaka35 said:


> I lived there for a while. And they complain about the waiting, for sure...but when you explain how the american system works, they get really wide eyes and don't believe you that a system could be that moronic and anti-consumer.


. While you lived there, did you not go to the hospital?  If you did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.



osaka35 said:


> Ask any informed canadian, they will tell you all the merits of their system, which far overshadows the annoyances (minus the specialist referrals, which is another ball of wax).


. I watched the Louder with Crowder episode where he discussed Canadian healthcare.  Since he is from Canada, that qualifies as getting info from an informed Canadian.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> I didn't get that info from Wikipedia, that's how you should know I'm informed.
> If you're homeless, you can go to the emergency room or clinic and get free healthcare.  They have to assist you but can't charge you if you don't have any way to pay.  If you're poor, you get government assistance which subsidizes your care.  This is common knowledge.



This is false. It might be true in a few, small, scenarios, like free clinics, probably locally based or hospital based. But not federally, and generally, this information isn't accurate for the majority of people. They will happily bill you if they know who you are. And just because you're poor, you are not automatically subsidized. You have to jump through an insane amount of hoops and hurdles, and that's only if you're not a student or not a lot of other things. Otherwise we wouldn't have homeless folks or struggling students.



morvoran said:


> If you are an illegal immigrant, you can do the same as homeless people to get free healthcare in the US.  Are you saying that Canada won't allow the same for visitors?  Hmmm, that shouldn't sound better than our healthcare to any leftist or democrat.


...no. this is false. Who is lying to you like this? If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed at them for being so misleading and lying so blatantly.



morvoran said:


> . While you lived there, did you not go to the hospital?  If you did, then we wouldn't be having this conversation.
> 
> . I watched the Louder with Crowder episode where he discussed Canadian healthcare.  Since he is from Canada, that qualifies as getting info from an informed Canadian.


I was not able to go to the hospital, no. But I accompanied my canadian friends to the ER many times. I've been to the ER in the states as well. Generally, wait times come down to need, and those with the larger need (gunshot wound vs the flu) will be admitted ahead of you. Which is hard to avoid, unless you prefer first-come-first-serve and let the gunshot wound person die while the flu person is seen first. And who the heck would choose options 2, even if option 1 causes annoying wait times?

Louder with Crowder is your source of information? well, that explains why you've got nearly everything backwards and wrong then.


----------



## UltraDolphinRevolution (Feb 26, 2020)

The military is basically a huge well-fare program because it operates at state expenses.
Sanders wants to massively cut back on it which is why the elites are so afraid of him.
The American people have to ask themselves what they got out of the Iraq war and why they go into it. A knife needs something to cut. A military stationed everywhere around the world needs something to shoot. The US defence spending has nothing to do with defence.


----------



## sarkwalvein (Feb 26, 2020)

I support socialism, or to be more specific, a moderate approach to capitalism where the whole social well-being is a shared responsibility.

I would like to support this idea out of my pocket. I know that, as it is, I am in a position of privilege, and if I were a stingy bastard I would probably be crying against it, but I consider that improving the social well-being improves my life quality more than holding up to my last cent.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2020)

Eredhel said:


> I wouldn't vote for a socialist party, based on what they did here in Latin America for these past 20 years. And I know how to manage my own money, I don't trust any politician with my property. But anyway, I should not extend my vision on this matter since I'm a libertarian and some might see me as an extremist (Hermann Hoppe Libertarian, I mean)


More or less, all countries in Latin America are corrupted, regardless of what side the politician are supposedly in favor of. Brazil has a conservative president, but he can't be trusted either. Some say: "He's the Brazilian Trump!" whether as a good or bad thing, but definitely the latter, even Trump is more sensible than that loose cannon of Bolsonaro. Yes, I know many might disagree and say "he's just as bad as Bolsonaro."

Mexico has a left-leaning leader, but it doesn't matter – They're in the shit too. The gangs do what they want and it's no wonder folks want to flee the country.

This happened in Mexico just four months ago or so:



And now there's that stupid "challenge" of Skullbreaker that started in Brazil and morons are all doing it for a few seconds of internet fame. A girl died because of it and she probably didn't know they were going to make her fall, else she wouldn't do it.



Anyway, I wouldn't align myself with either side. The result is ultimately the same. Jesse Ventura is right, but no one listens to him.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> This is false. It might be true in a few, small, scenarios, like free clinics, probably locally based or hospital based. But not federally, and generally, this information isn't accurate for the majority of people. They will happily bill you if they know who you are. And just because you're poor, you are not automatically subsidized. You have to jump through an insane amount of hoops and hurdles, and that's only if you're not a student or not a lot of other things. Otherwise we wouldn't have homeless folks or struggling students.


 False, huh?  Check this out - here 



osaka35 said:


> ...no. this is false. Who is lying to you like this? If I were you, I'd be pretty pissed at them for being so misleading and lying so blatantly.


 Ever heard of facts?  That is where I get my information.  
From somebody who said that Wikipedia is more trustworthy than the dictionary, I find your belief in nonsense hysterical.



osaka35 said:


> I've been to the ER in the states as well. Generally, wait times come down to need, and those with the larger need (gunshot wound vs the flu) will be admitted ahead of you. Which is hard to avoid, unless you prefer first-come-first-serve and let the gunshot wound person die while the flu person is seen first. And who the heck would choose options 2, even if option 1 causes annoying wait times?


 I went to the ER for a broken pinky bone here in the US.  I waited maybe 15 minutes to be helped, was pushed around on a gurney to the x-ray room and back, and was discharged in a wheelchair.  I would say my experience at the ER was very pleasant (almost 5 star service).  Not sure what hellhole you went to.



osaka35 said:


> Louder with Crowder is your source of information? well, that explains why you've got nearly everything backwards and wrong then.


  This is rich from somebody who thinks Wikipedia is a trust worthy site for real facts over a dictionary.



sarkwalvein said:


> I would like to support this idea out of my pocket.


  If you pay taxes of any sort, then you are paying out of pocket against your will.  What I mean is that even if you didn't want to support such causes, you're going to pay for them anyways.  Our social services should be charity based.  For one, they would get way more money.  Second, less of that money would be wasted on bureaucracy.


----------



## Xzi (Feb 26, 2020)

Full-on socialism of course being public (government) ownership of damn near everything, to then be redistributed as the state sees fit.  Which is something I'd be vehemently opposed to because it concentrates power into the hands of too few, at least initially.

Democratic socialism is very different, more akin to being a modern New Deal Democrat.  "Mean ol' Bernie Sanders is coming to give everyone (cheaper) healthcare and easy access to higher education.  Boo hoo."  Yeah that I can get behind.  Watching the media from both sides melt down over the prospect of his candidacy has been hilarious.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> False, huh?  Check this out - here
> 
> Ever heard of facts?  That is where I get my information.
> From somebody who said that Wikipedia is more trustworthy than the dictionary, I find your belief in nonsense hysterical


California is not federal. But we can talk about how that system works, what its flaws are, and how a federal system would work differently and what would work the same.



morvoran said:


> I went to the ER for a broken pinky bone here in the US.  I waited maybe 15 minutes to be helped, was pushed around on a gurney to the x-ray room and back, and was discharged in a wheelchair.  I would say my experience at the ER was very pleasant (almost 5 star service).  Not sure what hellhole you went to.



I'm assuming you had insurance, decent insurance, probably your parents? One experience does not negate or address the issues most people face. What of those millions who did not have your experience?



morvoran said:


> This is rich from somebody who thinks Wikipedia is a trust worthy site for real facts over a dictionary.
> 
> If you pay taxes of any sort, then you are paying out of pocket against your will.  What I mean is that even if you didn't want to support such causes, you're going to pay for them anyways.  Our social services should be charity based.  For one, they would get way more money.  Second, less of that money would be wasted on bureaucracy.



The thing about humans is they have a tendency to rationalize why they're fortunate in life and others are not. People don't like feeling like the universe is unfair or that they got anything through sheer luck or happenstance. This usually results in mentalities like "they must not have been as worthy as I was or else they'd also have my fortunate quality of life", which leads to saying things like "they should work harder" or "they just need to find a better job" or "they shouldn't have been doing X/Y/Z". It comes from the desire to not feel like the bad guy, or to not feel like good fortune is because others are suffering. Others see the imbalance and do their best to either give what they can or fix the inequalities which created the imbalance. And others just ignore the issue and pretend there isn't an issue. People are complex.

charity based is silly. Creates a massive issue with power imbalance, along with many many other things. it's an unsustainable and depressing system which would create horrible situation for everyone except the rich. Would you rather someone just be able to go to the emergency room if they need without fear of their entire life being turned upside down, or to stand outside with a sign until someone gives them enough money to go? I'm for option 1. Why aren't you?

A dictionary doesn't contain facts. it contains the definition most people use, right or wrong. Wikipedia isn't a bad starting point, as you can look through the citations for actual research papers, but google scholar is better. properly peer-reviewed papers from non-predatory journals are the important bits.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Full-on socialism of course being public (government) ownership of damn near everything, to then be redistributed as the state sees fit. Which is something I'd be vehemently opposed to because it concentrates power into the hands of too few, at least initially


 Wait a second.... I thought you were a Bernie supporter?  If so, then you are full on socialism like Cuba (which he thinks had excellent programs such as Fidel's literacy program and food lines).



Xzi said:


> Democratic socialism is very different, more akin to being a modern New Deal Democrat. "Mean ol' Bernie Sanders is coming to give everyone (cheaper) healthcare and easy access to higher education. Boo hoo." Yeah that I can get behind. Watching the media from both sides melt down over the prospect of his candidacy has been hilarious.


  Oh, that's right.  You're confused on by Bernie's sweet talking with promises of "free" healthcare and "free" paying off college debt.  Just because you put a word in front of another doesn't change the meaning of that word.  A socialist is a socialist regardless of how you try to twist it.

I'm not sure why you think his healthcare plan is (cheaper) or that nonsense tuition bs plan will offer easy access.  He plans on forcing us to pay a "progressive tax rate" starting at 52% for people making over $29,000.  This means that if you make $15/hour (his min wage plan that even he wasn't willing to pay), you'll end up making $7.20/hour after all his new taxes.  That means if you only make $10 now and pay for employee offered healthcare, you'll end up making less than before.  This means you won't be able to afford the same amount of food or luxuries you were used to in order to help subsidize this "free" (or 'cheaper') healthcare and pay for everybody else to go to community college when you already paid off your tuition bills.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Wait a second.... I thought you were a Bernie supporter?  If so, then you are full on socialism like Cuba (which he thinks had excellent programs such as Fidel's literacy program and food lines).
> 
> Oh, that's right.  You're confused on by Bernie's sweet talking with promises of "free" healthcare and "free" paying off college debt.  Just because you put a word in front of another doesn't change the meaning of that word.  A socialist is a socialist regardless of how you try to twist it.
> 
> I'm not sure why you think his healthcare plan is (cheaper) or that nonsense tuition bs plan will offer easy access.  He plans on forcing us to pay a "progressive tax rate" starting at 52% for people making over $29,000.  This means that if you make $15/hour (his min wage plan that even he wasn't willing to pay), you'll end up making $7.20/hour after all his new taxes.  That means if you only make $10 now and pay for employee offered healthcare, you'll end up making less than before.  This means you won't be able to afford the same amount of food or luxuries you were used to in order to help subsidize this "free" (or 'cheaper') healthcare and pay for everybody else to go to community college when you already paid off your tuition bills.



that 52% rate over 29,000 is incorrect. It's 52% for only the income over the 10,000,000 mark. Yes, this only applies to any money you make which is beyond the 10 million dollars you already made. 

families of four making under 29,000 would pay nothing. Not sure why they're being conflated like that, but gotta stay vigilant for misunderstandings


----------



## Xzi (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> He plans on forcing us to pay a "progressive tax rate" starting at 52% for people making over $29,000.


Rofl, you aren't Trump.  You can't just spew easily disproven bullshit.  His tax brackets don't change at all until $250,000 - $500,000.

And that's for single, 500K+ for couples.  Mostly he just added new brackets for obscene wealth.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> California is not federal. But we can talk about how that system works, what its flaws are, and how a federal system would work differently and what would work the same.


 Even one example proves my point was not wrong.



osaka35 said:


> I'm assuming you had insurance, decent insurance, probably your parents? One experience does not negate or address the issues most people face. What of those millions who did not have your experience?


  I had my own insurance.  You based your judgement on one example, so why does my example not hold the same amount of water as yours?



osaka35 said:


> charity based is silly. Creates a massive issue with power imbalance, along with many many other things. it's an unsustainable and depressing system which would create horrible situation for everyone except the rich.


 A lot of our non-profit social programs are charity based and collect a lot of money.  If the government-provided (aka stolen tax dollar funded) social services were converted to non-profit private orgs, then the rich, corps, and middleclass would be more likely to offer assistance for lower taxes instead of having their money stolen from them.



osaka35 said:


> A dictionary doesn't contain facts.


  Ok, maybe you should pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of "fact".

From Webster's dictionary:
*fact*
noun 
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In 

\ ˈfakt  

 \
*Definition of fact*
1a *: *something that has actual existence space exploration is now a fact
b *: *an actual occurrence prove the fact of damage
2 *: *a piece of information presented as having objective reality These are the hard facts of the case.
3 *: *the quality of being actual *: *actuality a question of fact hinges on evidence
4 *: *a thing done: such as
a *: *crime accessory after the fact
b archaic *: *action
c obsolete *: *feat
5 archaic *: *performance, doing
in fact
*: *in truth He looks younger, but _in fact_, he is 60 years old.

Or in case you want a definiton from a source you believe:

*Fact*
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Not to be confused with de facto. For other uses, see Fact (disambiguation).
A *fact* is a thing that is known to be consistent with objective reality and can be proven to be true with evidence. For example, "This sentence contains words." is a linguistic fact, and "The sun is a star." is a cosmological fact. Further, "Abraham Lincoln was the 16th President of the United States." and "Abraham Lincoln was assassinated." are also both facts, of history. All of these statements have the _epistemic quality_ of being "ontologically superior" to opinion or interpretation — they are either categorically necessary or supported by adequate documentation.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------



osaka35 said:


> that 52% rate over 29,000 is incorrect. It's 52% for only the income over the 10,000,000 mark. Yes, this only applies to any money you make which is beyond the 10 million dollars you already made.
> 
> families of four making under 29,000 would pay nothing. Not sure why they're being conflated like that, but gotta stay vigilant for misunderstandings





Xzi said:


> Rofl, you aren't Xzi. You can't just spew easily disproven bullshit. His tax brackets don't change at all until $250,000 - $500,000.
> 
> And that's for single, 500K+ for couples. Mostly he just added new brackets for obscene wealth.



Ok, my information came straight from AOC herself.
See here-------------




Try doubting me now....


----------



## Xzi (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Ok, my information came straight from AOC herself.


Nah you yanked that one straight out your ass.  Like 99% of everything you spew on here.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Even one example proves my point was not wrong.
> 
> I had my own insurance.  You based your judgement on one example, so why does my example not hold the same amount of water as yours?



One example which shows no problem does not negate many many many examples which show there are problems. When there are problems, you try and figure out why. Positive evidence and all that.



morvoran said:


> A lot of our non-profit social programs are charity based and collect a lot of money.  If the government-provided (aka stolen tax dollar funded) social services were converted to non-profit private orgs, then the rich, corps, and middleclass would be more likely to offer assistance for lower taxes instead of having their money stolen from them.



Charity-based organizations are generally helped through the government not taxing them. They can also get federal money in certain situations. And they are usually created by those with means trying to address problems. But their powers are not as strong as everyone in the country trying to work on the problem, which is the point and goal of a federal government (or should be). We need the power of all of us working together to fix these problems, not just a few people stepping up and the rest going "not my problem".



morvoran said:


> Ok, maybe you should pick up a dictionary and look up the definition of "fact".
> 
> From Webster's dictionary:
> *fact*
> ...



I...don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Mainly because I can look at the wikipedia page and see it goes into details, whereas the dictionary has just a few words of commonly used definitions. 



morvoran said:


> Ok, my information came straight from AOC herself.
> See here-------------
> 
> 
> ...




suspiciousfry.jpg


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

Xzi said:


> Nah you yanked that one straight out your ass.  Like 99% of everything you spew on here.


 That still leaves 1% which is 100% more truth than the nonsense you spread here.



osaka35 said:


> One example which shows no problem does not negate many many many examples which show there are problems. When there are problems, you try and figure out why. Positive evidence and all that.


 Same thing vice versa.  Your negative view doesn't negate the millions of positive experiences.



osaka35 said:


> I...don't think you're making the point you think you're making. Mainly because I can look at the wikipedia page and see it goes into details, whereas the dictionary has just a few words of commonly used definitions.


. Facts are facts where everything else is opinion or a falsity.  Dictionaries only provide definitions and examples which must be true or they can't be considered facts and defeat the purpose of them.  You are the one that is misunderstanding what is real and factual.



osaka35 said:


> Charity-based organizations are generally helped through the government not taxing them. They can also get federal money in certain situations. And they are usually created by those with means trying to address problems. But their powers are not as strong as everyone in the country trying to work on the problem, which is the point and goal of a federal government (or should be). We need the power of all of us working together to fix these problems, not just a few people stepping up and the rest going "not my problem".


 So you agree that stealing money from others is just fine.  Even though it won't happen, you would be happy under a Bernie presidency and to give up over half your paycheck( if you even work).

Why should anybody be forced to pay for services that they don't believe in?  If I feel that giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants is wrong, why should I pay into that program when there are enough leftists in the country willing to give up their parents' money to cover the costs?


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> Same thing vice versa.  Your negative view doesn't negate the millions of positive experiences.



That's why you have to dig in and understand why some folks have positive experience, and some of negative experiences. Your experiences are real, yes. But so are those with negative experiences. And what we find is it's due to how our current system works, with those who have a lot are fine, but those who have little do not. Why support a system which only works for some people? why not create a system which works for everyone?



morvoran said:


> . Facts are facts where everything else is opinion or a falsity.  Dictionaries only provide definitions and examples which must be true or they can't be considered facts and defeat the purpose of them.  You are the one that is misunderstanding what is real and factual.


why do you believe they must be true? There are many, many, many errors in the dictionary. Ask a specialist in any field, and I guarantee they'll have an issue with how something is defined in the dictionary. The dictionary tends to get a lot of science-related things not quite right.

The "facts" in the dictionary are their honest attempts at gathering and collecting best-known usages of a word, by the knowledge and research of those employed by the dictionary. Those are the facts you're seeing, their best look into how words are used. They're reporting linguistic facts, not authoritatively establishing facts. Their research can be wrong, and it should not be confused as creating facts. they're reporting what they hear of how other people use these words. This is a very different goal than something like a research article or wikipedia who attempts to establish facts through evidence.




morvoran said:


> So you agree that stealing money from others is just fine.  Even though it won't happen, you would be happy under a Bernie presidency and to give up over half your paycheck( if you even work).
> 
> Why should anybody be forced to pay for services that they don't believe in?  If I feel that giving free healthcare to illegal immigrants is wrong, why should I pay into that program when there are enough leftists in the country willing to give up their parents' money to cover the costs?



give up over half your paycheck? this comes from the same incorrect information which led you to believe he'd tax monies over 29k at 52%. You were blatantly lied to, you should yell at them.

But no, I don't see taxation as stealing money from me. I see it as doing my part and patriotic AF. I do see politicians stealing that money for themselves, or for the businesses giving them money, as stealing though. And that's what we should all be pissed at.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> Why support a system which only works for some people? why not create a system which works for everyone?


 I think you lost how this convo began. It started with you saying that the US has the worst healthcare in the world which is not true.



osaka35 said:


> why do you believe they must be true? There are many, many, many errors in the dictionary. Ask a specialist in any field, and I guarantee they'll have an issue with how something is defined in the dictionary. The dictionary tends to get a lot of science-related things not quite right.


 They must be what we consider to be true with what we know today or else it would be considered fiction.  People used to (well, some people still) believe that the world was flat and that was considered fact but only because that is what was believed to be true.  Today, the fact is that the world is round.  Same with definitions in the dictionary.



osaka35 said:


> The "facts" in the dictionary are their honest attempts at gathering and collecting best-known usages of a word, by the knowledge and research of those employed by the dictionary. Those are the facts you're seeing, their best look into how words are used. They're reporting linguistic facts, not authoritatively establishing facts. Their research can be wrong, and it should not be confused as creating facts. they're reporting what they hear of how other people use these words. This is a very different goal than something like a research article or wikipedia who attempts to establish facts through evidence.


 WTF?!?!?  Wikipedia is a gathering of facts and opinions that is peer written.  Dictionaries are a gathering of what we understand to be facts.



osaka35 said:


> give up over half your paycheck? this comes from the same incorrect information which led you to believe he'd tax monies over 29k at 52%. You were blatantly lied to, you should yell at them


 It really doesn't matter since Bernie won't be nominated to run for president, let alone win the presidency.



osaka35 said:


> But no, I don't see taxation as stealing money from me. I see it as doing my part and patriotic AF.


 The US was created based on not wanting to be taxed and having money stolen from its citizens.  If someone takes money from you against your will, that is the definition of theft (from the dictionary).  Stealing money from you through taxes is what socialism is all about which is why I say socialism is wrong.  Taking my money against my will to pay for things I think are wrong or unnecessary is wrong.


----------



## osaka35 (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> I think you lost how this convo began. It started with you saying that the US has the worst healthcare in the world which is not true.



One of the worst in developed nations. I kind of assumed you'd know I was talking about developed nations, sorry I was clearer. A lot of data and graphs which show the US near the bottom, though it also depends on the metric you're using. If you just go by "money's no object" as your measuring stick, you probably won't put much weight into any of the meaningful data other people use to measure success of a healthcare system.


morvoran said:


> They must be what we consider to be true with what we know today or else it would be considered fiction.  People used to (well, some people still) believe that the world was flat and that was considered fact but only because that is what was believed to be true.  Today, the fact is that the world is round.  Same with definitions in the dictionary.
> 
> WTF?!?!?  Wikipedia is a gathering of facts and opinions that is peer written.  Dictionaries are a gathering of what we understand to be facts.



your first paragraph likens scientific discoveries with establish linguistic norms. Not sure how or why you're making that huge of a leap.

your second paragraph there is close to what I said, minus the facts bit. they gather the linguistic norms. They don't do the actual scientific research here or anything, they just try and track down how it's used in that field. It's more of a journalism thing than a scientific discovery thing.



morvoran said:


> It really doesn't matter since Bernie won't be nominated to run for president, let alone win the presidency.
> 
> The US was created based on not wanting to be taxed and having money stolen from its citizens.  If someone takes money from you against your will, that is the definition of theft (from the dictionary).  Stealing money from you through taxes is what socialism is all about which is why I say socialism is wrong.  Taking my money against my will to pay for things I think are wrong or unnecessary is wrong.


Nah, it was about the colonies being taxed without a way of controlling how that money was spent (no taxation without representation). They were fine with taxes, they just wanted the people to have the power over where it went. They didn't want to watch all their hard work and progress be stolen by a controlling force which didn't care about them or their basic human needs. This is also what you believe, you're just ascribing blame to the wrong people and for the wrong reasons. Bernie is also fighting against very similar things, which is part of why I'm voting for him. Right now we just have corporations telling most of congress what to do with no respect or acknowledgement of what americans need or want. much like good ol' king george. Don't be on the side of the british, be on the side of the americans!


----------



## PZT (Feb 26, 2020)

Medicare For All is our last hope and copyright is a social construct


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2020)

@morvoran what do have against increasing taxes on the richest people in this country to setup public services for a baseline standard of living. I dont understand this thought process. How you can take what a multimillionaire says about the fairness of the market and think those statements apply to you?

I come to this arguement a lot. You're not one of the elites. You have nothing to gain from supporting these policies of easing the tax burden on the wealthy. The wage increase that trump supporters are proud of, went to the wealthiest people, we didnt get that.

But yet you chant the mantras, and repeat your go to slogans, which is just a form of brainwashing.

Here's the reality, no where on earth are you going to not have to pay taxes. And when those taxes go to public services: fire dept, police, road crews, military, education, criminal justice, or the infinite number of other services made available to you as well, that's socialism, most countries require a level of socialism to function.

It's just a word, no need to be afraid. It doesnt mean the commies are coming back to kick your door in and steal food off your table. As fox news would have you believe.

So back to my point. If taxes are going to increase for people that are _already_ multimillionaires, cause the tax increase is _after_ 10 mill. What do you care? You're not a multimillionaire. You will get the socialized healthcare.

You said yourself that behind politicians theres a corrupt rich dude in his pocket. Why be on the side of that rich dude?


----------



## chrisrlink (Feb 26, 2020)

THANK YOU WEEDZ a mod with good knowlege the US system is so broken grant it working for me wouldn't be sufficiant enough I'd dare anyone to be in my position for one month (handicapped and on Social supplementary income) try living on your own in the process too and find a job (hint you cant unless you want to be thrown under the bus by next month) i feel trapped by SSI basicly a spiral outta control SSI needs to be reworked and fast


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 26, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> increasing taxes on the richest people in this country to setup public services for a baseline standard of livin


You are assuming this 'tax money from the rich' would be directly distributed towards public services. It will not. In fact, I urge anyone reading this thread to look up a general summary of how federal tax money is spent in the US. Here are a few examples: national defense (makes up the largest percentage) and funding of the federal bureaucracy (bloated administrations, lobbyists). In other words, waste, waste, waste.
Perhaps the problem isn't that there is not enough tax revenue, but how _the tax money is being spent._

Another point, it is not money alone which will drive the public out of poverty or increase the quality of life. That is a rather juvenile thought, I'm sorry.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

osaka35 said:


> you probably won't put much weight into any of the meaningful data other people use to measure success of a healthcare system.


 I would rather go on facts than the opinions of others who have never been accustomed to the healthcare of other nations.  Of course, somebody who doesn't have insurance and gets a large bill is going to say our healthcare system is bad when they hear about other countries having "free" healthcare.  I'm sure if they knew about how inefficient and tax expensive that system was, they would see our healthcare in a better light.



osaka35 said:


> your first paragraph likens scientific discoveries with establish linguistic norms. Not sure how or why you're making that huge of a leap.


  The fact of the matter is that you don't have a grasp on what facts are.  This is probably why you think socialism is good and the democrat agenda is for your benefit.



osaka35 said:


> Don't be on the side of the british, be on the side of the americans!


 I'm on the side of all Americans even the socialist, baby killing, money stealing left that believe in false promises while being lead to the slaughterhouse. I feel sorry for them and forgive them for they know not what they do.





WeedZ said:


> what do have against increasing taxes on the richest people in this country


 The fact that they already pay more taxes than everybody else.  For the corporations that don't pay taxes, the reason they don't is due to deductible donations that they willingly give up to help others rather than have the money stolen from them.



WeedZ said:


> How you can take what a multimillionaire says about the fairness of the market and think those statements apply to you?


 If we tax the rich to a point they cannot make profits, this will tend to force them to move their companies and money to other countries.  This will affect everybody in the long run through higher taxes for the middle/poor classes, less jobs, and less choices in the market place which will destroy the economy.  I don't know about you, but I dread the idea of eating my pets just to feed myself and my family.



WeedZ said:


> You have nothing to gain from supporting these policies of easing the tax burden on the wealthy.


  Most, if not all, of us have gained from Trumps policies.  Have you not been paying attention to how great the economy has been?



WeedZ said:


> The wage increase that trump supporters are proud of, went to the wealthiest people, we didnt get that.


  Well, I don't know about you, but since I am self employed, I guess I can say my wages didn't increase (even though I have been making more sales the past couple of years which could be assumed to be an increase in wages).   Maybe you should go speak with your boss (if you have one) and ask for a raise.
The truth is that the top tier's earnings have only increased 12% where the earnings of the middle/lower classes have jumped up 20% since Trump has taken office.  I'm not sure how good you are at math, but maybe this will help you:  20% > 12%



WeedZ said:


> But yet you chant the mantras, and repeat your go to slogans, which is just a form of brainwashing.


 Yeah, um, since I'm a republican, I don't have leaders to tell me what to do, so I don't have mantras.  I go by facts that are out in the open if you just open your eyes to see them.  I don't just focus on the minor details of "oh, the rich have more money than me, they should pay more.  What bad could come from that?"  I actually think of the broader picture of what the negative effects will be as well.



WeedZ said:


> Here's the reality, no where on earth are you going to not have to pay taxes. And when those taxes go to public services: fire dept, police, road crews, military, education, criminal justice, or the infinite number of other services made available to you as well, that's socialism, most countries require a level of socialism to function.


  This whole thing about social services are socialism is a tired, overly used talking point of communist that only want to take control.
Our social services do resemble a lax version of socialism, but they are more of a "pay your fair share" system rather then spreading the wealth.  We all need to have fire dept, police, roads, educations, etc, so these are services that benefit everybody.  We do not need to steal money from the richest just because someone refuses to work.



WeedZ said:


> It's just a word, no need to be afraid. It doesnt mean the commies are coming back to kick your door in and steal food off your table. As fox news would have you believe.


 Take a look at Cuba and Venezuela and get back to me on this.



WeedZ said:


> So back to my point. If taxes are going to increase for people that are _already_ multimillionaires, cause the tax increase is _after_ 10 mill. What do you care? You're not a multimillionaire. You will get the socialized healthcare.


  I don't want socialized healthcare.  Why are my taxes going to increase to pay for something that I don't want or need?  How can you justify stealing money from anybody to pay for your own wants?  That's very selfish of you, comrade.



WeedZ said:


> You said yourself that behind politicians theres a corrupt rich dude in his pocket. Why be on the side of that rich dude?


  Because we need that rich dude to provide the goods and/or services we need/want at reasonable prices and to pay the outrageous tax rate our dumbocrat politicians keep jacking up more and more.  If that rich dude is gone, who is going to pay for these silly socialist programs that the Socialist Demonrats want to force upon us?



chrisrlink said:


> THANK YOU WEEDZ a mod with good knowlege the US system is so broken grant it working for me wouldn't be sufficiant enough I'd dare anyone to be in my position for one month (handicapped and on Social supplementary income) try living on your own in the process too and find a job (hint you cant unless you want to be thrown under the bus by next month) i feel trapped by SSI basicly a spiral outta control SSI needs to be reworked and fast


  Unless you are a quadriplegic, which I doubt since you are able to type a lot of nonsense on this site, there are other ways to make money other than sucking of the teets of SI.  You can start a hobby making crafts and sell them online or to your community.  You can save up to buy stuff at garage sales or bulk online orders, and sell them for a profit.   That's how I got started with my business.
Trust me, once you become self-sufficient, your outlook on life and society will become a lot better and you won't post silly stuff about how people should feel sorry for yourself and take care of you through taxes.


----------



## Deleted User (Feb 26, 2020)

I am not opposed to it on a local (State or lower) level (Where presumably everyone has voluntarily come together and agreed) but for a nation as large & diverse as America, it's just not practical nor sustainable. One only needs to take a glance at the population sizes for the beloved Nordic Model Nations to understand why such a system could never be sustained in America

Nordic Model Nations Population size (Source)
Sweden: 10,077,640
Denmark: 5,792,202
Finland: 5,537,783
Norway: 5,406,617
Iceland: 341,243

Even The Non-Nordic Model Countries have pathetically smaller population sizes compared to the US (in turn far less of a burden economically to provide things like Universal Healthcare).

List of nations with Universal Healthcare

America's population size: *330,335,317*

Another problem besides sheer Population Size is that we also play a far more significant role in the Geo-Politics, in fact, we even provide military protection & other "Foreign" aid to plenty of the nations in these lists, so in effect we're subsidizing their social programs (where those funds would ordinarily need to go towards Military, as a Nation without a Military cannot exists).

Also Most of these nations are ethnically & culturally homogeneous, which whether we like to admit it or not, does play a role in making it easier to accept paying for your fellow citizen's hardships (Human Tribalism); That same Social Cohesion just does not exists in America at a National level, or even a state level!

Not to be a nitpick, but another problem with having something like Universal Healthcare in America could also arise from the fact that Americans are also pre-disposed to a much higher variety of medical issues (Particularly expensive one's at that such as Obesity & Heart Problems arising from said Obesity), making each procedure more expensive to perform, as opposed to if there were a few common health problems with a few odd cases of Obesity or other expensive problems sprinkled in, but that is not our reality.

But Alas, if State Sovereignty were to be restored and the citizens of a a given state wanted to en-act Nordic Model "Socialism" (Which is not remotely related to Socialism besides their robust social programs), they would be within their right to do so, and should they sink or swim it would serve as an interesting case study (which other states can adopt different strategies if they so desire until the best practices can be found). One thing is for certain however, the Nordic Model could not be sustained *UNLESS *at the very least there are surplus funds, but more importantly (And more likely to create said surplus), business have to actually want to conduct business in your Nation, hence why those Nordic Model Countries tend to have some of the most favorable economic conditions to attract said businesses. Governments fail to understand how markets work in that sense, you cannot just bark demands or compel someone to perform a transaction with you, they will just stand up from the table and walk away (See literally every failed Communist Nation in history, or even the City of Detroit, lol).
------
Edit: I don't endorse nor agree with Counter Punch, I just hyperlinked them to prove a point (That Actual Socialist don't even consider Nordic Model to be socialist). To me the guy is loony AF and he has very poor understanding of how economics works (unsurprisingly, *rolls eyes).


----------



## WeedZ (Feb 26, 2020)

morvoran said:


> The fact that they already pay more taxes than everybody else.  For the corporations that don't pay taxes, the reason they don't is due to deductible donations that they willingly give up to help others rather than have the money stolen from them.
> 
> If we tax the rich to a point they cannot make profits, this will tend to force them to move their companies and money to other countries.  This will affect everybody in the long run through higher taxes for the middle/poor classes, less jobs, and less choices in the market place which will destroy the economy.  I don't know about you, but I dread the idea of eating my pets just to feed myself and my family.
> 
> ...



I'm on mobile so I'm not going to quote you a dozen times. I'll just reply to each paragraph.

1. Its estimated that 100 billion of tax revenue is lost each year due to tax dodging by the wealthy.

2. You have this false belief that the filthy rich must remain filthy rich in order for the mysterious economy creature to stay alive. This is one of the nonsense lies they sell you to protect their wealth. As far as taxing them to a point of not making a profit. I dont think you understand 10 mill + in revenue. You could tax them 90% and they would still clear more in a year than all of us in this thread combined, and a few million more on top.

3 and 4. Trump's policies make no difference to any private company, in terms of what to pay their employees. The name of the capitalist game is 'bottom line'. You maximize income and eliminate expenses. Labor budget is an expense. The people that run the companies got the benefit.

Unless you work on a farm or for the government, in which case, sorry for the rough last few years.

"The truth is that the top tier's earnings have only increased 12% where the earnings of the middle/lower classes have jumped up 20% since Trump has taken office. I'm not sure how good you are at math, but maybe this will help you: 20% > 12%"

Come on. You're smarter than that. Apparently your math isnt that great. 12% of 10,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 is 1,200,000 to 120,000,000.

20% of 30,000 to 120,000 is 6,000 to 24,000.

In this case 12% is 41,667 times greater than 20%.

5. You do the mantra stuff all the time, like every political post of yours is "witchhunt" "do-nothing-dems" "fake news" "orange man bad" etc. All repeated verbatim from fox and friends and right wing memes. If you catch yourself reciting a slogan or phrase as many do, that's a good time to self evaluate if what you're saying is actually true, or if you're just part of the herd. Dude, you even say "dumbocrat" in this post.

As far as relying on facts, in this thread alone you have been proven factually wrong three different times. But rather than acknowledge it. You sidestep with "well the other team is still wrong. Here's another reason why which is also factually untrue".

You dont care about facts, you care about your team winning always. Dems are always wrong in your view no matter the topic, and the reasons why you'll look up later. Instead of looking at facts now, coming to an informed conclusion and maybe lean a bit either way depending on the issue at hand. Informed and reasonable people arent so polarized. 

I'm not really feeling the effort to go through the rest. I can just sum it up as greed, selfishness and lack of social responsibility. Which are traits that most people would be ashamed of showing to others. 

Also, poor people unable to work and needing medication, to feed their children, proper housing.. these arent the enemies.


----------



## leon315 (Feb 26, 2020)

ONCE UPON A TIME, there was a Chinese revolutionist, politician, military command said:

_''It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice''

Deng Xiaoping.
_
translate: It doesn’t matter if they are democratic or despotic, so long as they safeguard a country's interests.

btw what has scandinavian to do with Socialism?


----------



## notimp (Feb 26, 2020)

Thats the key question.

No one is asking for socialism to be implemented anywhere.

You are all just following an ultra right wing playbook again, that has finally caught up to 'epistemes beat memes'.

You just say - someone is demanding socialicm.

People are too stupid to check anyhow.

Now you've got yourself a great discussion on them socials on 'is socialism ok'?
("Yes/No/Maybe Please tell, pleaaase.")

What a Sanders is campaigning for are systems, that have been in place in Canada an Europe for years. They arent socialist. They are democratic socialist (http://worldpopulationreview.com/countries/democratic-socialist-countries/).

History of that is - socialism lost everywhere in western europe, and to get votes at the time the conservatives aligned with social democrats, which were a party less left wing than socialists. What they then implemented was 'social market economy' and thats now basically what Sanders is demanding.

On healthcare:
Now - everyone that hasnt a vested interest in certain economical sectors wants the US healthcare system to be reformed. Simply because - for what it costs, its output is abysmal, on average (not for rich people). Which makes this a sector, where you could go in as a state, force restructuring, do half of the stuff wrong, and still have a more efficient outcome, than today. You could even try to foster economic competition within restructuring that sector, and have an actual economic boost, just form people cutting the fat out of it - which is also, why people always like to link it to further social reforms, like f.e. climate change - where you'd know that you'd loose jobs, currently, on average - but that it is a good investment for the future (not only for tha earth, but also for industry).

The only reasons why you wouldnt want to restructure health care, arent 'I like more joice', but because of vested interest, and because of the 'competitive spirit' that forces americans to fight even for the crappiest of low wage jobs - to get, or maintain their health insurance. That alone also is an economical driver, and one that is larger than 'just the health sector'.


So at heart, this is a discussion about -

- a social democratic system
Where there are security nets, that help people over illnesses, and job loss, without them having to go to basically NGOs - but that have less economic upwards dynamics at the 'shitty jobs' level ('We in america always believed in a can do attitude). While those competition around 'shitty jobs' also ensures, that new companies can get off the ground a little quicker.

- a neoliberal market economy
Where all life hands you, has to be solved by you somehow, you handle the risk, but at the same time, you getting sick can mean - that you loose your carrierpath at random.

In general yes - the second one is seen as an economic advantage for the US economy, but not for its people. So even the democratic elite, would like the system to remain, where its at currently.


Therefore the discussion currently has devolved into -

- calling Sanders proposals to change certain social systems "socialism" - which they arent. To have you somehow associate 'soviet union' with 'better health care'

- and saying words, that sound like what most of you would want (Buttigieg (im not googling that name again to find out how its written.  ) proposing "healthcare for everyone, that wants it" (and qualifies within certain parametes, that then can be tweaked, and... (= democratic elites will love it).

So thats the decision you are making, essentially. Make america a little less competitive, but fairer? No slippery slope, no russia, no socialism, no central planning, no...

How health care systems in western europe work, f.e. is, that there are cost brackets defined for every procedure, and even treatments. That are roughly the same for everyone. Companies can compete within those cost brackets. And yes, if you are a lets say farmer - you get a cost brackets that are a little larger than everyone elses (for what you are paying in) because, your livelyhood is basically your body.

Also you (everyone) only get one visit to a medical specialist (not a general practitioner) per field (so if you have two separate problems, thats not a problem) per quater year, otherwise you are paying for the visit out of pocket. (Thats in there so you dont jump doctors, because one doesnt tell you what you'd like to hear. If further treatments/visits are prescribed by that specialists, those then also are covered.) Clinics always are free.

Thats the extent to which those systems are 'state planned' in western europe.

For the state to be able to do that - in many countries in europe, medical insurance companies are run by the state. (Most of the important ones actually). Thats there, so that the state can dictate those 'price brackets' mentioned. If you feel the need to get much better care (which usually where I'm from is just pampering a little less waiting time sometimes, and enya music in the doctors office), you can pay for addon insurance products - that basically pays you fast track on some physicians, and access to some very high in demand individuals.

To get around that problem, as a state you also finance medical universities. So you always have very smart people, at the highest level also attending to the public at large.

Are you still afraid, that this is socialism? Is that too much state planning for you?

I hope that clears up some of the question.


----------



## morvoran (Feb 26, 2020)

WeedZ said:


> 1. Its estimated that 100 billion of tax revenue is lost each year due to tax dodging by the wealthy.


 They don't dodge taxes.  They utilize the tax laws to their benefit.  As you say, their main interest is the bottom dollar.  Why would they screw themselves by letting the government steal from them when they don't have to and instead put their money where it would be more beneficial as in private charities?



WeedZ said:


> 2. You have this false belief that the filthy rich must remain filthy rich in order for the mysterious economy creature to stay alive. This is one of the nonsense lies they sell you to protect their wealth. As far as taxing them to a point of not making a profit. I dont think you understand 10 mill + in revenue. You could tax them 90% and they would still clear more in a year than all of us in this thread combined, and a few million more on top.


 No, I have a belief that nobody should have their money stolen from them if they earned it regardless of how much they have. 
How about you give me access to your bank account and I'll give 70% of it to a homeless person, so you can see how it feels.



WeedZ said:


> 3 and 4. Trump's policies make no difference to any private company, in terms of what to pay their employees. The name of the capitalist game is 'bottom line'. You maximize income and eliminate expenses. Labor budget is an expense. The people that run the companies got the benefit.





WeedZ said:


> Unless you work on a farm or for the government, in which case, sorry for the rough last few years.


  You don't seem to have a grasp on what the president has been doing the past 3 years and what his policies are.



WeedZ said:


> "The truth is that the top tier's earnings have only increased 12% where the earnings of the middle/lower classes have jumped up 20% since Trump has taken office. I'm not sure how good you are at math, but maybe this will help you: 20% > 12%"
> 
> Come on. You're smarter than that. Apparently your math isnt that great. 12% of 10,000,000 to 1,000,000,000 is 1,200,000 to 120,000,000.
> 
> ...


 You're missing the point.  The fact that I was trying to point out to you is that the 90% of wage earners are growing at a faster rate than the top 10% to counter your lie about the top 10% getting a greater wage increase.



WeedZ said:


> 5. You do the mantra stuff all the time, like every political post of yours is "witchhunt" "do-nothing-dems" "fake news" "orange man bad" etc. All repeated verbatim from fox and friends and right wing memes. If you catch yourself reciting a slogan or phrase as many do, that's a good time to self evaluate if what you're saying is actually true, or if you're just part of the herd. Dude, you even say "dumbocrat" in this post.


  What do my "quotes" and "mantra stuff" have to do with the topic of socialism?  You mad bro? (sorry for assuming your gender)  Would you prefer that I go and bash a leftist's head with a bike lock or run my car through a Bernie supporter's tent?  I bet you'd like me running two teenagers off the road for having Biden flags on their bikes.  Maybe I should start a call to boycott a democrat leaning business to get it closed because I hate who they stand for?  Are those activities more WeedZ approved?  Since you took this thread too far off topic, you should close it for outliving its usefulness.



WeedZ said:


> As far as relying on facts, in this thread alone you have been proven factually wrong three different times. But rather than acknowledge it. You sidestep with "well the other team is still wrong. Here's another reason why which is also factually untrue".


  What have I been proven factually wrong about?  The fact that dictionaries contain facts and are more factual than wikipedia?  Come on, not you too!!!!



WeedZ said:


> You dont care about facts, you care about your team winning always. Dems are always wrong in your view no matter the topic, and the reasons why you'll look up later. Instead of looking at facts now, coming to an informed conclusion and maybe lean a bit either way depending on the issue at hand. Informed and reasonable people arent so polarized.


 I care about all the above.  Also, I would be a shitty republican if I didn't want them to win and believed everything the Dums said.  Plus, I left the democratic party because I saw their evilness and lust for power.  It's a shame that more don't see it, but I guess they got you people shackled with their false promises and lies.



WeedZ said:


> I'm not really feeling the effort to go through the rest. I can just sum it up as greed, selfishness and lack of social responsibility. Which are traits that most people would be ashamed of showing to others.


  Then why don't the demonrats hide in the shadows instead of just blatantly spewing their hate, greed, selfishness, and evil ways in public?  Did you not watch any of their impeachment sham?



WeedZ said:


> Also, poor people unable to work and needing medication, to feed their children, proper housing.. these arent the enemies.


  No, they are just fodder for the demonrat agenda.  The dumbocrat politicians want them to stay poor, hungry, and sick.  Otherwise, who would they falsely promise "free stuff" to win their votes?


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

morvoran said:


> They don't dodge taxes. They utilize the tax laws to their benefit. As you say, their main interest is the bottom dollar. Why would they screw themselves by letting the government steal from them when they don't have to and instead put their money where it would be more beneficial as in private charities?


When you drive to work. The cars on the road are the product of capitalism. The roads are build by the state.
(Roads are so costly, that necessary investments would outspend any company to pay for them. They only 'pay for themselves' - in most areas, in timespans that outstretch the average livespan of a company. When corporations built consortiums to do large infrastructure spending in the past (think railway systems), they always ended as monopolies, that would optimize return of investment, drive most infrastructure into the ground, and then file for bankruptcy.)

When you work at wall street, the trading is organized by capitalism, the regulation is done by the state.
(This one is easy - if you let trading be regulated by short term investment interests you get private monopolies acting like criminal enterprises in no time).

When you have children, basic and higher education in large parts is organized by the state.
(If you leave it to private investors, they sell you Trump Steaks, and Trump university, and religious education - and pocket the difference.)

When you reach retirement age, your income is payed by the state, not by private companies.
(Also easy to explain - because what does a private company do with old folks?)

When you eat your breakfast in the morning, the products on your plate are the result of capitalism, but everything that makes them arrive, keeps the cost down, makes sure you dont just eat corn syrup all day, and also limits price speculation (availability) - is "the government stealing from you".

If you don't pay government - society crumbles.

Now - reasons why rich people dont pay governments.

The fairytale (capitalism founding myth..  ) goes, that the state is horrible, when it comes to 'allocation' of funds. Meaning. No one entity can be proficient enough, to invest in all needs and potentials "better" - than everyone around, trying "to make it" (make a good living) collectively.

That is where your 'companies are better' simplification comes from.

(Also a state has a hard time going bancrupt. So every company dealing with a state has an incetive to screw it over, basically. There really is no downside for them. So structurally you are better off with companies screwing over each other - to at least drive competition.)

So billionairs always will argue - leave the money to them, they know better where to invest.

The issue being, that 'trickle down economics' never worked. And most 'investment' done by the rich lately was done either in Mexico, or in China, (or as Japan in the US to try to bribe politics to keep your market open to Japan) - and most investment money was carried off to virtual casino economies called "tha stock market" - where everyone makes, and looses money based on bets, that are 100times higher than the amounts of bets needed to insure other investment activities.

Intelligent investment capital doesnt go into the real economy in the US anymore. Instead it burns down rainforests in Brasil, because "more people on earth wanting food", is a pretty safe bet.

You need regulation on some level, and if you don't pay taxes - you dont get it.

Americans have been brainwashed with the believe, that everything will endlessly get better for no reason other than "you just have to believe" for the longest time, and that anyone that doesnt just set free economic forces hinders progress. In essence, thats a lie. (You may believe it nationally - if you are really stupid, you can't believe it any more as soon as you look at international relations.)

US is very happy currently - because it has become the worlds secend biggest tax haven, with the worlds biggest tax haven being one of its croney (helper) states. They did so, by controlling the worlds economic flows (knowing what they are (NSA)), and bullying former tax havens like Switzerland. While at the same time retracting from the international order they themselves had established in the past.

You did that - to get the big capital stocks, back into your jurisdiction. Now you look at it and fold your hands over your tummy and say to everyone "look, it gets bigger" - the stock market has such a boon, while millennials in the US still get no chance to participate in it at all?

Where is the economic development, that will bring the US properly paid jobs again? (Aside from shale oil fracking.)


If your education level only ever reaches 'companies good' - 'state stealing', what the heck are you doing trying to win over people in a political forum?


----------



## Purple_Shyguy (Feb 27, 2020)

Great in theory.
Bad in practice.

Just like feminism and multiculturalism.


----------



## 0x3000027E (Feb 27, 2020)

notimp said:


> payed by the state


Correction, paid by the _taxpayer_,_ redistributed_ by the state. I know, a small detail, but an important one.


----------



## notimp (Feb 27, 2020)

I give you that. 

Point maybe is, that you have to pry that money away from people that think mainly about self interest.

Point also is, that you better do that for their retirement - because otherwise you end up with (some) people putting everything on red in casino economies.

A stable economy/currency also doesnt just come for free.

You need a mediator. At some level. (And that it is controlled by something we cal democracy isnt the worst thing..  )


----------

