Robbing Peter to Pay Paul

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I've seen you offer no workable solutions.

I have none. Overweening arrogance might lead some to think they have been vouchsafed some blueprint to utopia--but I'm not in that crowd.

When dealing with 400m people--the concept of a policy that benifits all..without screwing some---has little validity to me.

 

[pknopp]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I've seen you offer no workable solutions.

I have none. Overweening arrogance might lead some to think they have been vouchsafed some blueprint to utopia--but I'm not in that crowd.

When dealing with 400m people--the concept of a policy that benifits all..without screwing some---has little validity to me.

OK so we will go with what we have decided is the best alternative to the status quo.

 

[gipper]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I think the solutions are evident.
- Government needs to get out of the business of protecting and enriching big corporations.
- They need to protect the rights of all citizens.
- No more private donations to politicians or political parties.
- Public funding of all campaigns
- Term limit Congress.
- Promote third parties and stop the duopoly.
- Eliminate the ridiculous tax system that benefits the wealthy.
- Government needs to invest in education for all and fix our infrastructure.
- M4A needs to be enacted, as it will save money over the ridiculously expensive and ineffective system we have now, that bankrupts thousands of poor Americans every year.
- Homelessness needs to be addressed, getting these poor people off our streets.

It is a great Manifesto you have there....hard to disagree with any of it.

It is a bit short on process..those dirty details of implementation.

People like to be rich..'cause..rich is better, right? Govt. is composed of people.

Things like 'Rights of all citizens' You cannot even get a random 100 people to agree on what that even means!

Some of the things you list are basically tweaks to the existing system..and I'm with you on that.

Good luck with term limits..although I support it. True tax reform? I wish!

SCOTUS embraced Citizen's United---money=free speech, remember?

There is no cutting of the Gordian Knot..short of catastrophe or overpowering external compulsion.

Just incremental progress...hopefully unnoticed.

No. The “rights” of citizens is very simple. It’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It’s all about preventing government from infringing on our rights. Government needs to instead, protect our rights.

You claimed solutions to our problems are difficult. I think not. I listed simple solutions above. However I recognize they won’t they won’t be enacted by a terminally corrupt government.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I think the solutions are evident.
- Government needs to get out of the business of protecting and enriching big corporations.
- They need to protect the rights of all citizens.
- No more private donations to politicians or political parties.
- Public funding of all campaigns
- Term limit Congress.
- Promote third parties and stop the duopoly.
- Eliminate the ridiculous tax system that benefits the wealthy.
- Government needs to invest in education for all and fix our infrastructure.
- M4A needs to be enacted, as it will save money over the ridiculously expensive and ineffective system we have now, that bankrupts thousands of poor Americans every year.
- Homelessness needs to be addressed, getting these poor people off our streets.

It is a great Manifesto you have there....hard to disagree with any of it.

It is a bit short on process..those dirty details of implementation.

People like to be rich..'cause..rich is better, right? Govt. is composed of people.

Things like 'Rights of all citizens' You cannot even get a random 100 people to agree on what that even means!

Some of the things you list are basically tweaks to the existing system..and I'm with you on that.

Good luck with term limits..although I support it. True tax reform? I wish!

SCOTUS embraced Citizen's United---money=free speech, remember?

There is no cutting of the Gordian Knot..short of catastrophe or overpowering external compulsion.

Just incremental progress...hopefully unnoticed.

No. The “rights” of citizens is very simple. It’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It’s all about preventing government from infringing on our rights. Government needs to instead, protect our rights.

You claimed solutions to our problems are difficult. I think not. I listed simple solutions above. However I recognize they won’t they won’t be enacted by a terminally corrupt government.

There you have it..you see...not everyone shares your belief that the Bill of Rights means what you think it does. Your interpretation may be totally different from another's--my point being...in your best model of how things should be...there are tens of millions who totally disagree with you.

This is always going to be the case...why broad, sweeping change is so hard to implement.

In the end..they call it culture war for a reason....

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I've seen you offer no workable solutions.

I have none. Overweening arrogance might lead some to think they have been vouchsafed some blueprint to utopia--but I'm not in that crowd.

When dealing with 400m people--the concept of a policy that benifits all..without screwing some---has little validity to me.

OK so we will go with what we have decided is the best alternative to the status quo.

Has it occurred to you that the status quo..might be the best we can do? Given all possible alternatives, I mean,

 

[pknopp]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I've seen you offer no workable solutions.

I have none. Overweening arrogance might lead some to think they have been vouchsafed some blueprint to utopia--but I'm not in that crowd.

When dealing with 400m people--the concept of a policy that benifits all..without screwing some---has little validity to me.

OK so we will go with what we have decided is the best alternative to the status quo.

Has it occurred to you that the status quo..might be the best we can do? Given all possible alternatives, I mean,

Think whatever you want.

 

[Burgermeister]

Google Cloward-Piven strategy.

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I've seen you offer no workable solutions.

I have none. Overweening arrogance might lead some to think they have been vouchsafed some blueprint to utopia--but I'm not in that crowd.

When dealing with 400m people--the concept of a policy that benifits all..without screwing some---has little validity to me.

OK so we will go with what we have decided is the best alternative to the status quo.

Has it occurred to you that the status quo..might be the best we can do? Given all possible alternatives, I mean,

Think whatever you want.

I've never really needed advice in that regard...but OK.~

 

[EvilEyeFleegle]

Google Cloward-Piven strategy.

...and raise you one Fabian Incrementalism.....LOL!

 

[gipper]

And then people wonder why socialism is becoming more attractive to more people.

If we don't address this soon, those who actually want socialism will be thanking us.

We have Socialism. We have long had Socialism. The problem is our Socialism takes from the poor and working class and gives to those who already have.

no we don't have socialism....that's plain bullshit

We've had some form of Socialism since 1935

History of Social Security in the United States - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Any form of social safety net implemented by the Govt. and funded by taxes is Socialistic in nature.

Medicare, Social Security--esp. SSD and SSI, Food Stamps, a mandated minimum wage, subsidized housing, Workman's Comp., Unemployment Benefits, Disabled Benefits, OSHA, FDA, USDA--and the list goes on.

I don't go quite as far as saying that every form of regulation has a socialist element--but a great many do.

And lots of Fascism too.

Keep beating that drum gipper....I think you're lost in the -ism's---but the point is a bit moot. The complexity of the system in general obviates easy labels--and the inertia guarantees some form of the same ole, same ole--for quite some time..IMO.

Fascism, like Socialism, Communism and Capitalism--has been transformed into a stick to hit others with..it has no real meaning anymore--except in the most general of senses.

You will say that compelling people to obey these Socialistic laws is Fascist...I would say that it's a amalgam--and that the system works for most people, most times and that you can't get any better than that.

I thought we were discussing the economic system. It’s hardly a capitalist system when government protects and enriches big connected corporations, while receiving massive donations from those every same corporations. At the same time, government is doing little to protect the rights of the average citizen and offers little support to vast numbers of suffering citizens.

You can call it what you like, but it certainly isn’t free market capitalism.

We agree on this..as i have said..it's an amalgam. Free Market Capitalism died in 1928--although it took a few more decades for the body to stop twitching.

Probably a good thing.

Disagree about the Govt. not doing much for the average citizen. Also disagree about just what 'vast numbers of suffering citizens' means.

Not seeing mass starvation..not seeing anything that I would term 'vast suffering'. We have a robust social safety net..some here at USMB will rant that it is entirely too robust!
As long as we have a multi-billion dollar diet industry..I'm going to rest easy, ya know?

Yes..things could be better...and we should strive for that.

I guess we will have to disagree. Poverty is a obvious problem in the world’s richest nation. When large segments of our population can’t come up with $1,000 for an emergency expense, apparently many aren’t doing very well. When our corrupt federal government continues to bail out the wealthy to the tune of billions, but offers peanuts like $1200 checks to the people, it’s obvious what’s going on. When millions lose their homes, but Wall Street who caused the Great Recession gets protected and enriched, it’s obvious.

Yes...it could be fairer, no argument there.

Life..be it individual or en-masse, is, by its nature a work in progress.

No no one has yet devised a better method for sharing the wealth...without just shifting the burden to another segment of society.

As I'm sure you know..socialism..and communism--were both envisioned as a way to do just that, right?

I don't think we disagree on the fundamental unfairness and the disparities built into the system- we disagree on how to address them..without the solutions being worse than the problems!

SHTF and a great reset is not a plan..IMO.

I think the solutions are evident.
- Government needs to get out of the business of protecting and enriching big corporations.
- They need to protect the rights of all citizens.
- No more private donations to politicians or political parties.
- Public funding of all campaigns
- Term limit Congress.
- Promote third parties and stop the duopoly.
- Eliminate the ridiculous tax system that benefits the wealthy.
- Government needs to invest in education for all and fix our infrastructure.
- M4A needs to be enacted, as it will save money over the ridiculously expensive and ineffective system we have now, that bankrupts thousands of poor Americans every year.
- Homelessness needs to be addressed, getting these poor people off our streets.

It is a great Manifesto you have there....hard to disagree with any of it.

It is a bit short on process..those dirty details of implementation.

People like to be rich..'cause..rich is better, right? Govt. is composed of people.

Things like 'Rights of all citizens' You cannot even get a random 100 people to agree on what that even means!

Some of the things you list are basically tweaks to the existing system..and I'm with you on that.

Good luck with term limits..although I support it. True tax reform? I wish!

SCOTUS embraced Citizen's United---money=free speech, remember?

There is no cutting of the Gordian Knot..short of catastrophe or overpowering external compulsion.

Just incremental progress...hopefully unnoticed.

No. The “rights” of citizens is very simple. It’s spelled out in the Bill of Rights. It’s all about preventing government from infringing on our rights. Government needs to instead, protect our rights.

You claimed solutions to our problems are difficult. I think not. I listed simple solutions above. However I recognize they won’t they won’t be enacted by a terminally corrupt government.

There you have it..you see...not everyone shares your belief that the Bill of Rights means what you think it does. Your interpretation may be totally different from another's--my point being...in your best model of how things should be...there are tens of millions who totally disagree with you.

This is always going to be the case...why broad, sweeping change is so hard to implement.

In the end..they call it culture war for a reason....

I don’t think so. It’s not MY interpretation. The original intent of the Bill of Rights is very clear. It’s intent is to prevent government from infringing on people’s rights. I believe the vast majority of Americans support it.

I agree sweeping change is hard and not likely to occur with the current structure.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Google Cloward-Piven strategy.

There's already a thread here explaining not only the strategy, but also containing perfect examples right from the horses mouth.

The Cloward-Piven Strategy

In the spirit of current events, I was reminded of the old Cloward-Piven Strategy. It's been put to use throught our short history. It's worth the read. As I mentioned, though, just in the spirit of current events. Inspired by the August 1965 riots in the black district of Watts in Los...

www.usmessageboard.com

Way to place it into perspective, though, you're exactly right. I think others know as well after learning what it actually is. Which is likely why that discusion got crickets. Heh heh.