?
  1. Inequality is the cause of all problems! REDISTRIBUTE EVERYTHING!!!!!

    4.0%
  2. I really love that Scandinavian way of doing things...

    30.0%
  3. I like some of the ideas but not the whole package...

    24.0%
  4. I'm kind of neutral on this. I get the picture but my political compass is elsewhere

    8.0%
  5. Never! I'd rather give Trump four more years

    26.0%
  6. Other, namely...

    8.0%
  1. Boesy

    Boesy GBAtemp Fan
    Member

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2020
    Messages:
    330
    Country:
    United Kingdom
    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.

     
  2. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  3. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    9,543
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Feb 26, 2020
    Taleweaver, lexarvn and D34DL1N3R like this.
  4. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,065
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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?

    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.
     
    Last edited by osaka35, Feb 26, 2020
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  5. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
  6. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,065
    Country:
    United States
    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 :)
     
    Last edited by osaka35, Feb 26, 2020
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  7. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    9,543
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Feb 26, 2020
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  8. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    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?

    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.

    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.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

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




    Try doubting me now....
     
    Last edited by morvoran, Feb 26, 2020
  9. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2013
    Messages:
    9,543
    Country:
    United States
    Nah you yanked that one straight out your ass. Like 99% of everything you spew on here.
     
    D34DL1N3R and osaka35 like this.
  10. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,065
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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".

    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.

    suspiciousfry.jpg
     
    Last edited by osaka35, Feb 26, 2020
    D34DL1N3R likes this.
  11. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    That still leaves 1% which is 100% more truth than the nonsense you spread here.

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

    . 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.

    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?
     
    Last edited by morvoran, Feb 26, 2020
  12. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,065
    Country:
    United States
    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?

    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.


    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.
     
    Last edited by osaka35, Feb 26, 2020
  13. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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.

    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.
     
    Last edited by morvoran, Feb 26, 2020
  14. osaka35

    osaka35 Instructional Designer
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2009
    Messages:
    3,065
    Country:
    United States
    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.
    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.

    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!
     
    Last edited by osaka35, Feb 26, 2020
  15. PZT

    PZT Member
    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2017
    Messages:
    21
    Country:
    United States
    Medicare For All is our last hope and copyright is a social construct
     
  16. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2015
    Messages:
    3,633
    Country:
    United States
    @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?

    [​IMG]
     
    Xzi, osaka35 and chrisrlink like this.
  17. chrisrlink

    chrisrlink Intel Pentium III Hamster inside
    Member

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,162
    Country:
    United States
    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
     
  18. 0x3000027E

    0x3000027E GBAtemp Regular
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2018
    Messages:
    140
    Country:
    United States
    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.
     
    LonelyPhantom and morvoran like this.
  19. morvoran

    morvoran Trumpican
    Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2010
    Messages:
    718
    Country:
    United States
    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.

    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.

    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.



    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.

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

    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%

    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.

    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.

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

    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.

    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?

    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.
     
    Last edited by morvoran, Feb 26, 2020
  20. LonelyPhantom

    LonelyPhantom Pending Deletion
    Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2017
    Messages:
    205
    Country:
    United States
    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).
     
    Last edited by LonelyPhantom, Feb 26, 2020
    Taleweaver and 0x3000027E like this.
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...

Hide similar threads Similar threads with keywords - socialism, stance, Whats