Reply With Quote
just like a good little fascist tbh.
Who the are you talking to with the 3rd person narratives? You don't seem right in the head.
just like a good little fascist tbh.
Good lord...get a ing life.
My computer may have been showing me in this thread but I have been to two jobs and a funeral while you were getting hysterical over my lack of response.
And no, I'm not going to cut and paste multiple sources to "prove" my point that belief in MMT is quite similar to believing in the tooth fairy. The facts are easily available for those that wish learn more.
The offered rate for your psychological advice seems appropriate.
Lol your crankypants, semi-coherent ass calling out anyone else for being non compos mentis.
Do you project much?
Lol "who the are you to be posting?!!@11*%1!!"
^^^Chris's "look at me dance" is looking at AOC.
This is exaggeratingly alarmist. Let's look at some of the core ideas of the "increasingly radical leftist" Democratic party.
- Universal healthcare. This is bad why? Works in every other developed country in the world just fine. "B-B-But h-h-h-how are we gonna pay for it!" I think in combination with higher tax rates (on the wealthy and maybe a slight tax hike on the middle class, which will wind up paying for itself), universal healthcare supporters need to see that we are already spending the same amount of tax dollars per capita on healthcare as universal healthcare countries and ask, "Where is the money is going?" I've already speculated where the money is going. To pay for price gouged services, equipment, and medicine. The profit motive is fundamentally incompatible with "Do No Harm," as I've said.
- Higher marginal tax rates (and capital gains rates) on the very wealthy. Bad why? Worked post-New Deal/pre-Reagan fine. As we've discussed before, trickle down has had a 40 year trial. Bottom 90% growth flatlined. We can talk about globalization, technology, etc, etc, changing the economy all we want, but boiled down, the economy fully satisfied the conditions of supply side economics where the wealthy saw significant growth, and per the theory, it was supposed to neatly "trickle down" regardless of any marketplace changes. It didn't. It simply doesn't work.
- Addressing climate change. Bad why? The scientific consensus is that we need to address it. I'll buy that it's a "global conspiracy" to impose "ebil socialism and big gubbint" if you can show me some hard evidence that supports that idea. That said, I'm not a climate scientist, nor am I a dilettante blogger/youtuber who believes he's a climate scientist after reading a couple of Wikipedia articles and thinks he has the authority to state, "there is no crisis!" Yes, AOC's GND is optimistic, but that doesn't mean we need to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
- Immigration. We've come to agreement on a sensible policy in earlier discussion, which I think most Dems would favor.
Don't see how this " show" is going to be produced.
As long as your grandkids don't watch cable news for hours a day finding bull to be mad about, they're going to be fine, happy people.
"College girl dances"
WOW!
I recall inviting a close friend and his girlfriend for dinner one night.This was during my college days, back in the late 1980s or early 1990s.
They walked in. "How lovely," my dear friend's future wife said.
I had prepared a fancy dinner in a fully fancy, 19th century rental house. A hundred candles were blazing, in the fanciest possible candlabra in the dining room.
"I can't do it," my friend said.
"What", I said
He was like, " Get the lights up. Turn 'em on, I can't deal with this."
"This is what the past and the future have in common, " he said.
"What is that," I asked.
"Poor lighting."
Last edited by Winehole23; 03-01-2019 at 06:45 PM.
the same way people thought gay marriage was going to ruin civilization
IMO, you can't divorce community from our elected representatives. Their sole job description is to represent their community. That they routinely take a on the people they represent talks about them, not the system. Now democracy doesn't fit the socialist political model (partially anyways, things like regulation matches on both), but that doesn't mean you can't have socialist economics within a democracy. That's what's largely different from Communism, where you can't split the political and economic sides as one largely relies on the other, or it just won't fit the communist doctrine.
The programs I mentioned are run by departments. Much like the military is structured in departments and runs different programs. There's really zero difference both in structure and functional substance. The Dept of Agriculture has what most people would agree are 'social programs', sure. Foodstamps can largely be described as a socialist program in nature. It doesn't necessarily fits capitalism because it introduces government intervention in a market which, as any economist will tell you, distorts said market. It creates artificial demand where otherwise wouldn't be (poor people wouldn't be able to afford the food by themselves). The entire MIC is that. Not only that, despite that as you mention soldiers might have to pay for certain items, they have their own government funded healthcare system, and their salaries and pensions are handled exactly like that of any other federal government employee.
Herr Dobbs
I can hear the sound of Hannity fapping from here. Gross.
Sums it up pretty well.
The "extreme left" tilt is a transparent attempt to do a handwavy dismissal of the entire concept. That is not cutting it anymore.
Your imagination - yikes!
almost as disgusting as daisy hogg tbh
I missed the daisy hogg thing. Can you feel me in?
That fact that the funding for the military is from capitalist corporations and private individuals who aren't in the military should be enough to show they aren't a socialist system. They don't exist without outside funding. You can say the same for foodstamps or welfare, but those affect everyone who qualifies for them. You cannot simply lose your job and qualify for the military. It's a volunteer organization, and you can be removed and not let back in. You can be deemed to old or young to be in the military. Officers are treated to a higher standard of living than are enlisted people even though they work less. That doesn't sound like socialism. If soldiers were paid proper wages, they could buy private healthcare. Taking their wages and giving them healthcare in return isn't the same as socialized medicine, because you cannot walk onto a base and visit the clinic for free unless we are active or qualify as a retiree. In a socialist country, an outsider can get medical treatment just as an insider can. The military is more like an exclusive club with a pyramid system.
How is he going to fire her?
you didn't watch lol
Not sure about Nono, but what I mean when I say the military is a socialized program is that it's funded via tax payer dollars and is still required to defend the "freeloaders" that don't pay taxes. The argument against universal healthcare is usually, "why should I have to pay for the healthcare of others?" Well, can't we make that same argument here? "Why should I have to pay for the defense of others?" Or even worse, why should I have to pay for the defense of Europe? (yes, Frostking posted a link that they cover about a 3rd of the costs, but still, only a 3rd). Police and fire are the same in this regard, but you never hear conservatives whine about paying for the police protection for others.
I honestly think the backlash against universal healthcare is more because it's a liberal position that conservatives have to be against.
The funding is the point. Those 'capitalist corporations and private individuals' are indeed the community. They're tax dollars. The fact that, as you say, they wouldn't exist if that government welfare wouldn't be there, is what makes the system intrinsically socialist. And socialist in more ways than just funding. Don't forget the VA gets to mandate how much they'll pay for medicines (a power not even Medicare has). There's egregious socialism anywhere you look at it, and I don't mean that's a bad thing. The main reason you couldn't have a solid military as a private system is that the mission wouldn't be what it needs to be, which is defending the country primarily, projecting power as a secondary, etc. It would instead be profit motive. This is exactly the same dichotomy that comes up every time there's a discussion about our healthcare system, profit motive vs what's the mission, which are often at odds with each other.
As far as volunteer or not, there's nothing compulsive about social plans either. You can opt not to sign up for or use foodstamps even if you qualify. However, the government *must* fund it, whether you qualify for the program, or you pay taxes or not. Foodstamps is also a an 'exclusive club'. Not everybody qualifies for it. You can't walk into Social Security and demand foodstamps. You can also be kicked out of the program. Same with Medicare, Medicaid and all those social programs. Same thing in countries with socialized medicine: you can opt not to use the free healthcare, but your taxes will still pay for the program, whether you use it or not.
Some people like to associate socialism with some sort of evil empire, but we see socialism everywhere all the time where capitalism just simply cannot make a profitable, compe ive market, and there's a higher mission than just the bare economic interest. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.
Last edited by ElNono; 03-02-2019 at 12:31 AM. Reason: typos
There are currently 2 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 2 guests)
Posting Permissions
