One day the economy will get much worse and only socialism will save it

[gallantwarrior]

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

Poor fool. That has ALWAYS been the PROMISE of socialism, too bad it has never ever worked.

So how will the GOP address the issues I brought up?

How will you?

 

[LeftofLeft]

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

What socialist model are Democrats going to bring to implement? History shows most of them fail.

 

[Edgetho]

How will the GOP address the issues I listed?

We don't have any issues. You, OTOH, have a plethora of them

 

[Pumpkin Row]

You'll notice that private industry builds better roads when the government isn't involved. If they want customers, they'll build roads to their place of business. The government is not required, as there's a demand for roads.

If there's a demand for something, the private industry takes care of it. If there isn't, it is not needed. This is the nature of capitalism, and government interference only impedes progress.

If you'd leave the Church of the Omnipotent State, you'd stop believing that they're the only people who can do everything, and realize that they are not omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. With a lack of incentive, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of resources, the state is actually the LEAST qualified entity for everything you believe it's capable of. Any money it has, it steals, anything it buys, it pays too much for and either gets too much or too little, as it can't accurately measure demand, and anything it builds, is mediocre at best.

Your faith in the state is horribly misplaced.........................

That's quite a post Pumpkin, but most of it your opinion and your perspective. Which is fine.
As far as Democrats and Republicans being the same......dunno. In the upper political circles, probably more so.
Down here among the grunts, not so much. ALL politicians are bought. We're paying through corporate and corrupt proxy.

While your view of government is largely true, especially as it leans socialist and becomes more corrupt we still need government services for National defense and certain social services. The interstate system is probably better as a Federal program.

I do, however, LOVE your expression "Church of the Omnipotent State". lol I have to remember that one.

While you may believe that most of it is my opinion, I notice that you didn't take the time to debunk any of it. I see this as counterproductive, as this is a chance for civil discourse. I'd like you to at least tell me which parts you believe to be untrue, aside from my statement that Republicans and Democrats have the same goal. (I will mention that I probably should have specified that I believe the politicians have the same goal, not the individuals)

It was stated during World War 2 that Japan never invaded the United states because the citizens were armed, they had no way of knowing which houses contained armed citizens. This lends credit to the possibility of a militia being more dangerous than a military.

There's a demand for an interstate, so a business would have incentive to build it. Since it's not the wasteful and inefficient government, it would likely be better maintained as well.

 

[Edgetho]

What socialist model are Democrats going to bring to implement? History shows most of them fail.

Incorrect. They have ALL failed. Some of them catastrophically

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

How will you?

I think he's asking the wrong question. Why shouldn't both parties work together? Why are they so diametrically opposed?
He should ask how will GOVERNMENT because Socialism is the promise of Panacea, but the reality of Regression & Repression

 

[depotoo]

Oh my, you have eaten the crap, haven’t you...

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

 

[BasicHumanUnit]

While you may believe that most of it is my opinion, I notice that you didn't take the time to debunk any of it. I see this as counterproductive, as this is a chance for civil discourse. I'd like you to at least tell me which parts you believe to be untrue, aside from my statement that Republicans and Democrats have the same goal. (I will mention that I probably should have specified that I believe the politicians have the same goal, not the individuals)

It was stated during World War 2 that Japan never invaded the United states because the citizens were armed, they had no way of knowing which houses contained armed citizens. This lends credit to the possibility of a militia being more dangerous than a military.

There's a demand for an interstate, so a business would have incentive to build it. Since it's not the wasteful and inefficient government, it would likely be better maintained as well.

The Japanese thingy is folk lore. Yamamoto never actually said that.
I didn't actually say it was not true....but only that it was your opinion. Are your points substantiated?

I basically agree with you so we don't need to butt heads

 

[Kondor3]

Socialism to the rescue?

Today is not that day.

 

[gallantwarrior]

Socialist policy is never the answer.

Social security was a bad idea?

Well, yes, it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. The government is currently in debt up to its eyeballs, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that it's capable of saving one's money for them.

Putting aside socialism for a moment, how would republican policy address the issues I arose?

They wouldn't, the Republicans want what the Democrats want. The only difference which they pretend exists is that Democrats hate it when a Republican does it, and the Republicans hate when a Democrat does it. Of course, neither have policies which work, because their end goal is the same as yours.

I can, however, tell you what would actually solve all of the problems you listed.

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

Automation can never replace "human jobs", because people will always have to program, innovate, build, and service the machines. If there's a demand for it, the private sector will fulfill that demand, and if there isn't a demand, it doesn't need to exist.

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

People get paid what their performance and position is worth, otherwise they work for someone else. The government is not, and has never been necessary to determine wages. One has to be completely delusional to believe that random people are qualified for determining demand and cost simply because they're part of the government. People who support a federal minimum wage are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State.

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

If the government had not interfered in the market in the first place, neither would be a problem. The government created both problems with regulations and patents. Because of the government, before Obama destroyed the already-too-heavily-regulated healthcare industry, the Healthcare providers were limited to specific areas, limiting competition, allowing them to raise costs, as few to no other options were available.

As for medicine costs, the businesses already have to pay colossal amounts and go through a long process to get their medicine onto the market in the first place, and patents make this even worse, as it limits competition. If it weren't for the government, there may have been cures for cancer and AIDs by now, and far fewer people would have died of curable illnesses.

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

If Climate Change existed, policies claiming to solve it wouldn't be getting rammed down our throats, and data wouldn't be falsified. Scientists also would be open to debating the topic, rather than claiming there's no point in debating and that people who disagree should be thrown in jail. The fact that anyone believes it's an actual issue is absolutely sad.

There's already insurance for natural disasters, and it would be far better if the government wasn't regulating it.

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

You'll notice that private industry builds better roads when the government isn't involved. If they want customers, they'll build roads to their place of business. The government is not required, as there's a demand for roads.

If there's a demand for something, the private industry takes care of it. If there isn't, it is not needed. This is the nature of capitalism, and government interference only impedes progress.

If you'd leave the Church of the Omnipotent State, you'd stop believing that they're the only people who can do everything, and realize that they are not omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. With a lack of incentive, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of resources, the state is actually the LEAST qualified entity for everything you believe it's capable of. Any money it has, it steals, anything it buys, it pays too much for and either gets too much or too little, as it can't accurately measure demand, and anything it builds, is mediocre at best.

Your faith in the state is horribly misplaced.

DING! DING! DING! I can only give you one "winner" icon.

 

[Edgetho]

I think he's asking the wrong question. Why shouldn't both parties work together? <snip>

Because dimocraps are the scum of the Earth.

Criminals, gangsters, thieves, liars, abusers of women, the original racists, child molesters (NAMBLA was protected by dimocrap scum and defended by the ACLU [american communist lawyers association])

I shit you not, dimocraps are the absolute scum of the Earth.

The Republican Party was formed as an abolitionist Party. dimocrap FILTH stole our platform and radicalized it while turning Black People against the Patriots who fought and died to free them.

Susan B Anthony was a lifelong Republican. dimocrap scum stole that platform, radicalized it and turned it against......... Rinse, lather, repeat.

What will be the next platform dimocrap FILTH steal from us and radicalize, then claim as their own inventon??

Organized Crime, thieving Unions, the shitholes they call Cities.... dimocraps are scum and everything they touch they turn to shit.

All you gotta do is open your eyes. Those people aren't worth trying to have an intelligent discourse with. You destroy them, you don't talk to them

 

[Billy000]

Socialist policy is never the answer.

Social security was a bad idea?

Well, yes, it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. The government is currently in debt up to its eyeballs, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that it's capable of saving one's money for them.

Putting aside socialism for a moment, how would republican policy address the issues I arose?

They wouldn't, the Republicans want what the Democrats want. The only difference which they pretend exists is that Democrats hate it when a Republican does it, and the Republicans hate when a Democrat does it. Of course, neither have policies which work, because their end goal is the same as yours.

I can, however, tell you what would actually solve all of the problems you listed.

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

Automation can never replace "human jobs", because people will always have to program, innovate, build, and service the machines. If there's a demand for it, the private sector will fulfill that demand, and if there isn't a demand, it doesn't need to exist.

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

People get paid what their performance and position is worth, otherwise they work for someone else. The government is not, and has never been necessary to determine wages. One has to be completely delusional to believe that random people are qualified for determining demand and cost simply because they're part of the government. People who support a federal minimum wage are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State.

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

If the government had not interfered in the market in the first place, neither would be a problem. The government created both problems with regulations and patents. Because of the government, before Obama destroyed the already-too-heavily-regulated healthcare industry, the Healthcare providers were limited to specific areas, limiting competition, allowing them to raise costs, as few to no other options were available.

As for medicine costs, the businesses already have to pay colossal amounts and go through a long process to get their medicine onto the market in the first place, and patents make this even worse, as it limits competition. If it weren't for the government, there may have been cures for cancer and AIDs by now, and far fewer people would have died of curable illnesses.

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

If Climate Change existed, policies claiming to solve it wouldn't be getting rammed down our throats, and data wouldn't be falsified. Scientists also would be open to debating the topic, rather than claiming there's no point in debating and that people who disagree should be thrown in jail. The fact that anyone believes it's an actual issue is absolutely sad.

There's already insurance for natural disasters, and it would be far better if the government wasn't regulating it.

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

You'll notice that private industry builds better roads when the government isn't involved. If they want customers, they'll build roads to their place of business. The government is not required, as there's a demand for roads.

If there's a demand for something, the private industry takes care of it. If there isn't, it is not needed. This is the nature of capitalism, and government interference only impedes progress.

If you'd leave the Church of the Omnipotent State, you'd stop believing that they're the only people who can do everything, and realize that they are not omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. With a lack of incentive, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of resources, the state is actually the LEAST qualified entity for everything you believe it's capable of. Any money it has, it steals, anything it buys, it pays too much for and either gets too much or too little, as it can't accurately measure demand, and anything it builds, is mediocre at best.

Your faith in the state is horribly misplaced.

Lol okay so basically you’re saying you have full confidence these problems will sort themselves out naturally in a completely deregulated market? That’s it? That’s your simple solution to a complex problem?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

May-be you should defect to a socialist Country and give it a whirl. Let me know how all the free shit works out.

Norway and Denmark are awfully tempting.

We've been over this, the Nordic model causes extremely high tax rates, and much like every other Socialist State ever, slowly declines. In a previous thread, I proved their economies are worse and that they have much higher taxes, and growing debt.

While you may believe that most of it is my opinion, I notice that you didn't take the time to debunk any of it. I see this as counterproductive, as this is a chance for civil discourse. I'd like you to at least tell me which parts you believe to be untrue, aside from my statement that Republicans and Democrats have the same goal. (I will mention that I probably should have specified that I believe the politicians have the same goal, not the individuals)

It was stated during World War 2 that Japan never invaded the United states because the citizens were armed, they had no way of knowing which houses contained armed citizens. This lends credit to the possibility of a militia being more dangerous than a military.

There's a demand for an interstate, so a business would have incentive to build it. Since it's not the wasteful and inefficient government, it would likely be better maintained as well.

The Japanese thingy is folk lore. Yamamoto never actually said that.
I didn't actually say it was not true....but only that it was your opinion. Are your points substantiated?

I basically agree with you so we don't need to butt heads

Civil Discourse isn't butting heads, it's discussing ideas. This is what I do here, everyone else is free to argue. I was only asking for clarification because I figured that whether we disagree or agree, the discussion of ideas would be interesting.

If someone questions me on it, I do have a long list of citations, and most of it is substantiated through quick google searches or connecting the dots even without my citations. The medicine bit, for example, is a given. If something is too expensive and there are no patents, someone will obviously just buy from another business, thus forcing the other business to either perform better or fail. The cost of production is also much cheaper than the prices we see, so clearly the resulting lack of competition and difficulty in placing one's product on the shelf is driving up prices.

 

[fncceo]

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

The same way we’ve been doing it for almost 600 years.

Awesomely.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Socialist policy is never the answer.

Social security was a bad idea?

Well, yes, it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. The government is currently in debt up to its eyeballs, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that it's capable of saving one's money for them.

Putting aside socialism for a moment, how would republican policy address the issues I arose?

They wouldn't, the Republicans want what the Democrats want. The only difference which they pretend exists is that Democrats hate it when a Republican does it, and the Republicans hate when a Democrat does it. Of course, neither have policies which work, because their end goal is the same as yours.

I can, however, tell you what would actually solve all of the problems you listed.

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

Automation can never replace "human jobs", because people will always have to program, innovate, build, and service the machines. If there's a demand for it, the private sector will fulfill that demand, and if there isn't a demand, it doesn't need to exist.

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

People get paid what their performance and position is worth, otherwise they work for someone else. The government is not, and has never been necessary to determine wages. One has to be completely delusional to believe that random people are qualified for determining demand and cost simply because they're part of the government. People who support a federal minimum wage are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State.

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

If the government had not interfered in the market in the first place, neither would be a problem. The government created both problems with regulations and patents. Because of the government, before Obama destroyed the already-too-heavily-regulated healthcare industry, the Healthcare providers were limited to specific areas, limiting competition, allowing them to raise costs, as few to no other options were available.

As for medicine costs, the businesses already have to pay colossal amounts and go through a long process to get their medicine onto the market in the first place, and patents make this even worse, as it limits competition. If it weren't for the government, there may have been cures for cancer and AIDs by now, and far fewer people would have died of curable illnesses.

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

If Climate Change existed, policies claiming to solve it wouldn't be getting rammed down our throats, and data wouldn't be falsified. Scientists also would be open to debating the topic, rather than claiming there's no point in debating and that people who disagree should be thrown in jail. The fact that anyone believes it's an actual issue is absolutely sad.

There's already insurance for natural disasters, and it would be far better if the government wasn't regulating it.

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

You'll notice that private industry builds better roads when the government isn't involved. If they want customers, they'll build roads to their place of business. The government is not required, as there's a demand for roads.

If there's a demand for something, the private industry takes care of it. If there isn't, it is not needed. This is the nature of capitalism, and government interference only impedes progress.

If you'd leave the Church of the Omnipotent State, you'd stop believing that they're the only people who can do everything, and realize that they are not omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. With a lack of incentive, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of resources, the state is actually the LEAST qualified entity for everything you believe it's capable of. Any money it has, it steals, anything it buys, it pays too much for and either gets too much or too little, as it can't accurately measure demand, and anything it builds, is mediocre at best.

Your faith in the state is horribly misplaced.

Lol okay so basically you’re saying you have full confidence these problems will sort themselves out naturally in a completely deregulated market? That’s it? That’s your simple solution to a complex problem?

If you have read my post, then you've also read my long explanation as to how deregulation would solve the problem, and how regulation caused the problem.

As we discussed the last several times I've defeated you in debate, swiftly, easily, and with style, regulations drive up prices by making the establishment or continuation of a small business more difficult, as regulations are designed to make conduction of business more difficult.

Of course, a worse economy is expected from a bunch of politicians with no business experience whatsoever attempting to determine how a business should operate. Again, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that a Politician could run a business. If they could, they'd be running one and simply paying the government to enact regulations on their competition, to promote the creation of their monopoly.

In short, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of replying with, essentially, "You sure, sis?".

 

[task0778]

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

/——/ Maybe Socialism can save Cuba, North Korea and Venezuela—— oh wait. Never mind.

It’s not my fault you don’t understand the different types of socialism.

Maybe you should expand a little on which type of socialism you're talking about.

And then tell us how your brand of socialism will fix all those things you listed in the OP.

 

[Billy000]

Social security was a bad idea?

Well, yes, it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. The government is currently in debt up to its eyeballs, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that it's capable of saving one's money for them.

Putting aside socialism for a moment, how would republican policy address the issues I arose?

They wouldn't, the Republicans want what the Democrats want. The only difference which they pretend exists is that Democrats hate it when a Republican does it, and the Republicans hate when a Democrat does it. Of course, neither have policies which work, because their end goal is the same as yours.

I can, however, tell you what would actually solve all of the problems you listed.

How will republican policy address automation replacing human jobs?

Automation can never replace "human jobs", because people will always have to program, innovate, build, and service the machines. If there's a demand for it, the private sector will fulfill that demand, and if there isn't a demand, it doesn't need to exist.

How will republican policy address wages becoming more and more behind on the rising cost of living nationwide?

People get paid what their performance and position is worth, otherwise they work for someone else. The government is not, and has never been necessary to determine wages. One has to be completely delusional to believe that random people are qualified for determining demand and cost simply because they're part of the government. People who support a federal minimum wage are part of the Church of the Omnipotent State.

How will republican policy address rising drug prices and high deductible health insurance plans?

If the government had not interfered in the market in the first place, neither would be a problem. The government created both problems with regulations and patents. Because of the government, before Obama destroyed the already-too-heavily-regulated healthcare industry, the Healthcare providers were limited to specific areas, limiting competition, allowing them to raise costs, as few to no other options were available.

As for medicine costs, the businesses already have to pay colossal amounts and go through a long process to get their medicine onto the market in the first place, and patents make this even worse, as it limits competition. If it weren't for the government, there may have been cures for cancer and AIDs by now, and far fewer people would have died of curable illnesses.

How will republican policy mitigate problems like drought and other natural disasters that are only getting worse because of climate change?

If Climate Change existed, policies claiming to solve it wouldn't be getting rammed down our throats, and data wouldn't be falsified. Scientists also would be open to debating the topic, rather than claiming there's no point in debating and that people who disagree should be thrown in jail. The fact that anyone believes it's an actual issue is absolutely sad.

There's already insurance for natural disasters, and it would be far better if the government wasn't regulating it.

How will republican policy fix our crumbling infrastructure?

Only socialist policy can improve all of these things.

You'll notice that private industry builds better roads when the government isn't involved. If they want customers, they'll build roads to their place of business. The government is not required, as there's a demand for roads.

If there's a demand for something, the private industry takes care of it. If there isn't, it is not needed. This is the nature of capitalism, and government interference only impedes progress.

If you'd leave the Church of the Omnipotent State, you'd stop believing that they're the only people who can do everything, and realize that they are not omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient. With a lack of incentive, a lack of knowledge, and a lack of resources, the state is actually the LEAST qualified entity for everything you believe it's capable of. Any money it has, it steals, anything it buys, it pays too much for and either gets too much or too little, as it can't accurately measure demand, and anything it builds, is mediocre at best.

Your faith in the state is horribly misplaced.

Lol okay so basically you’re saying you have full confidence these problems will sort themselves out naturally in a completely deregulated market? That’s it? That’s your simple solution to a complex problem?

If you have read my post, then you've also read my long explanation as to how deregulation would solve the problem, and how regulation caused the problem.

As we discussed the last several times I've defeated you in debate, swiftly, easily, and with style, regulations drive up prices by making the establishment or continuation of a small business more difficult, as regulations are designed to make conduction of business more difficult.

Of course, a worse economy is expected from a bunch of politicians with no business experience whatsoever attempting to determine how a business should operate. Again, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that a Politician could run a business. If they could, they'd be running one and simply paying the government to enact regulations on their competition, to promote the creation of their monopoly.

In short, if you had an argument, you'd have made it instead of replying with, essentially, "You sure, sis?".

Lol you definitely don’t win. I just stop replying because you talk in circles and ignore actual points being made.

 

[Edgetho]

May-be you should defect to a socialist Country and give it a whirl. Let me know how all the free shit works out.

Norway and Denmark are awfully tempting.

I don't know WHERE you fucking knuckleheads get the idea those Countries are socialist.

They are NOT. They are about as far away from socialist as it gets.

For one thing, Norway is known as The KINGDOM of Norway and is a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy.

Denmark is a Constitutional Monarchy. They have a King.

Both are Welfare States. And that's okay with me. If they want to commit social suicide, I'm down with that

But they are NOT socialist. Not even close

You people are too stupid to have a rational discussion with.

 

[Zander]

Socialist policy is never the answer.

Social security was a bad idea?

Well, yes, it's an unsustainable ponzi scheme. The government is currently in debt up to its eyeballs, one would have to be part of the Church of the Omnipotent State to believe that it's capable of saving one's money for them.

Putting aside socialism for a moment, how would republican policy address the issues I arose?

No. Let's not put aside socialism for a moment. How would socialism address the issues raised? Obviously, you (a socialist?) think that republicans have no answers. I want to know what the socialist solutions would be to the problems raised?

FREE SHIT!!!

 

[Toro]

I noticed you didn't say Democrats were going to save us.

He’s deluded, not retarded.