The results of Democrat policy...

[P@triot]

Guarantee you, written in stone right here, right now - the left will propose this in America within the next 20 years. There is simply no way around it.

It's the only option available when you refuse to look at history, results, and fact. If you insist on forging ahead with ideology above any rational thought (like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Debbie Waserman-Shultz, and Barack Obama do), you eventually hit a point where government force in every facet of life has been such a spectacular failure, that you can no longer deny it. When that happens, your only choice is to force business to sell products at the price you dictate so that you can temporarily declare your policies "successful".

Of course, that only last so long before businesses go can no longer afford to stay in business and the entire thing collapses. But even at the very moment - you'll never hear the Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi's of the world acknowledge that their ideology is failed ideology. They will still blame capitalism. They will say that if the "greedy" business owners had just accepted losing money and stayed in business, products would still be available and people would still have jobs. This happened in the former U.S.S.R. and the Democrats didn't learn. This happened in Cuba and the Democrats didn't learn. This happened in Cambodia and the Democrats didn't learn. This happened in Vietnam and the Democrats didn't learn. This is currently happening in Greece, Spain, and France and the Demcorats haven't learned. And now Venezuela has offered itself up as yet another case study in the failure of left-wing policy - and the Demcorats still will not learn.

"Maduro has said he will use the expanded powers, which last for one year, to impose caps on private sector profits and crack down on speculators."

Venezuela parliament backs Maduro rule by decree bid

 

[P@triot]

It's just a damn shame the left-wing ideologues won't examine the facts and the results of their policies...

"Since his election as president in April, the month after Chavez died, Maduro has been forced to confront the fact that his predecessor — popular for socialist initiatives that eased the burdens of the poor — left the Venezuelan economy in shambles."

Desperation in Venezuela - latimes.com

 

[Nyvin]

It's funny you only list a bunch of authoritarian regimes that have absolutely no relations to the USA, but never mention places like Scandinavia or even Canada where a lot of "socialist" policies are actually quite successful.

Greece and Spain are both falling apart from rampant capitalism if anything. They had easy borrowing capability from the stronger EU nations and went on a debt-driven boom-mega-bust cycle. Prior to 2008 everyone was talking about how Spain was a "true example of the success of capitalism" and all the typical talk with it's major housing developments, business friendly policies and so forth. Greece has been a mess economically for as long as it's been independent, just now it's tied to a monetary union with the rest of Europe so it's more pronounced publicly.

Cuba's economy was almost exclusively tied to the USSR...oil, food, military, everything. When the Soviets went down, so did Cuba, with our trade embargo still intact.

 

[P@triot]

It's funny you only list a bunch of authoritarian regimes that have absolutely no relations to the USA, but never mention places like Scandinavia or even Canada where a lot of "socialist" policies are actually quite successful.

Greece and Spain are both falling apart from rampant capitalism if anything. They had easy borrowing capability from the stronger EU nations and went on a debt-driven boom-mega-bust cycle. Prior to 2008 everyone was talking about how Spain was a "true example of the success of capitalism" and all the typical talk with it's major housing developments, business friendly policies and so forth. Greece has been a mess economically for as long as it's been independent, just now it's tied to a monetary union with the rest of Europe so it's more pronounced publicly.

Cuba's economy was almost exclusively tied to the USSR...oil, food, military, everything. When the Soviets went down, so did Cuba, with our trade embargo still intact.

 

[P@triot]

It's funny you only list a bunch of authoritarian regimes that have absolutely no relations to the USA, but never mention places like Scandinavia or even Canada where a lot of "socialist" policies are actually quite successful.

Greece and Spain are both falling apart from rampant capitalism if anything. They had easy borrowing capability from the stronger EU nations and went on a debt-driven boom-mega-bust cycle. Prior to 2008 everyone was talking about how Spain was a "true example of the success of capitalism" and all the typical talk with it's major housing developments, business friendly policies and so forth. Greece has been a mess economically for as long as it's been independent, just now it's tied to a monetary union with the rest of Europe so it's more pronounced publicly.

Cuba's economy was almost exclusively tied to the USSR...oil, food, military, everything. When the Soviets went down, so did Cuba, with our trade embargo still intact.

See what I mean folks?!? No matter how much failure, misery, and poverty left-wing government-control policy creates, they will always ignore the facts in favor of the ideology.

 

[Nyvin]

It's funny you only list a bunch of authoritarian regimes that have absolutely no relations to the USA, but never mention places like Scandinavia or even Canada where a lot of "socialist" policies are actually quite successful.

Greece and Spain are both falling apart from rampant capitalism if anything. They had easy borrowing capability from the stronger EU nations and went on a debt-driven boom-mega-bust cycle. Prior to 2008 everyone was talking about how Spain was a "true example of the success of capitalism" and all the typical talk with it's major housing developments, business friendly policies and so forth. Greece has been a mess economically for as long as it's been independent, just now it's tied to a monetary union with the rest of Europe so it's more pronounced publicly.

Cuba's economy was almost exclusively tied to the USSR...oil, food, military, everything. When the Soviets went down, so did Cuba, with our trade embargo still intact.

See what I mean folks?!? No matter how much failure, misery, and poverty left-wing government-control policy creates, they will always ignore the facts in favor of the ideology.

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

 

[Xarm]

Anyone remember reagonomics? I sure hope not, because that is a nightmare I don't want to live through.

 

[P@triot]

See what I mean folks?!? No matter how much failure, misery, and poverty left-wing government-control policy creates, they will always ignore the facts in favor of the ideology.

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.

Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?

Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

 

[P@triot]

Anyone remember reagonomics? I sure hope not, because that is a nightmare I don't want to live through.

Oh, you mean the policies that took the second worst economy in U.S. history (great job Jimmy Carter) and created the greatest economic tidal wave in U.S. history (which took Bill Clinton's idiot 1997 Community Reinvestment Act which collapsed the housing market to stop)?

Yeah - who would want to live through that kind of prosperity "nightmare" again?

 

[Xarm]

Anyone remember reagonomics? I sure hope not, because that is a nightmare I don't want to live through.

Oh, you mean the policies that took the second worst economy in U.S. history (great job Jimmy Carter) and created the greatest economic tidal wave in U.S. history (which took Bill Clinton's idiot 1997 Community Reinvestment Act which collapsed the housing market to stop)?

Yeah - who would want to live through that kind of prosperity "nightmare" again?

The same one where CEO pay tripled and worker wages have stagnated since? Sounds like the "Great Leap Forward", or other insane attempts at fixing economies.

 

[P@triot]

Anyone remember reagonomics? I sure hope not, because that is a nightmare I don't want to live through.

Oh, you mean the policies that took the second worst economy in U.S. history (great job Jimmy Carter) and created the greatest economic tidal wave in U.S. history (which took Bill Clinton's idiot 1997 Community Reinvestment Act which collapsed the housing market to stop)?

Yeah - who would want to live through that kind of prosperity "nightmare" again?

The same one where CEO pay tripled and worker wages have stagnated since? Sounds like the "Great Leap Forward", or other insane attempts at fixing economies.

So tell me the part where Reagan placed restrictions on "workers wages" and ensured they were limited in their salary opportunities?

If the worker's wage "stagnated" under Reagan, it's because the worker's productivity and personal development "stagnated". If a worker expect to make six-figures working on an assembly line, that worker is an idiot with zero understanding of basic economics and business.

The problem with the left is that they literally have zero understanding of what dictates a persons salary. It never ceases to leave my jaw on the floor listening to a Democrat explain their theory of what determines a persons salary.

What do you say Xarm - care to give it a shot?

 

[Nyvin]

See what I mean folks?!? No matter how much failure, misery, and poverty left-wing government-control policy creates, they will always ignore the facts in favor of the ideology.

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.

Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?

Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

Super rich people come here to get healthcare....point? That has Zero relation to poverty...none, zilch, nada.

If you're "beyond a shadow of a doubt" were true, China would not be sky-rocketing economically for the last 30 plus years...unless you wanna make some claim they aren't government controlled. I'm not arguing free markets are "bad" but everything can be taken in moderation. I'd argue that the "intense" free market globalization we see today is increasing inequality at a rate we've never seen before.

 

[Xarm]

Oh, you mean the policies that took the second worst economy in U.S. history (great job Jimmy Carter) and created the greatest economic tidal wave in U.S. history (which took Bill Clinton's idiot 1997 Community Reinvestment Act which collapsed the housing market to stop)?

Yeah - who would want to live through that kind of prosperity "nightmare" again?

The same one where CEO pay tripled and worker wages have stagnated since? Sounds like the "Great Leap Forward", or other insane attempts at fixing economies.

So tell me the part where Reagan placed restrictions on "workers wages" and ensured they were limited in their salary opportunities?

If the worker's wage "stagnated" under Reagan, it's because the worker's productivity and personal development "stagnated". If a worker expect to make six-figures working on an assembly line, that worker is an idiot with zero understanding of basic economics and business.

The problem with the left is that they literally have zero understanding of what dictates a persons salary. It never ceases to leave my jaw on the floor listening to a Democrat explain their theory of what determines a persons salary.

What do you say Xarm - care to give it a shot?

Do you know how to have a civil debate without ad hominem attacks? Worker productivity actually increased exponentially as wages stayed the same. That means the economy was stimulated on the backbone of workers being underpaid.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

See what I mean folks?!? No matter how much failure, misery, and poverty left-wing government-control policy creates, they will always ignore the facts in favor of the ideology.

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.

Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?

Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

History has proven no such thing, since there's never been a true "free market" economy in the history of the world.

And if "every other developed nation" has "far inferior" healthcare compared to us, why are the people in those countries so much happier with their healthcare than we are?

 

[ShawnChris13]

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.



Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?



Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

History has proven no such thing, since there's never been a true "free market" economy in the history of the world.



And if "every other developed nation" has "far inferior" healthcare compared to us, why are the people in those countries so much happier with their healthcare than we are?

People love their health care. People hate their health care. It's the same everywhere. Don't try to use opinions as factual arguments.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.



Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?



Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

History has proven no such thing, since there's never been a true "free market" economy in the history of the world.



And if "every other developed nation" has "far inferior" healthcare compared to us, why are the people in those countries so much happier with their healthcare than we are?

People love their health care. People hate their health care. It's the same everywhere. Don't try to use opinions as factual arguments.

I'm discussing the fact that a much higher percentage of people in England respond that they are "happy" with their healthcare than US citizens. That's not an opinion.

 

[P@triot]

Are you suggesting being right wing reduces poverty? Considering every other developed nation on Earth has some form of universal healthcare I really have a hard time believing this.

History has proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that free markets reduces poverty. History has also proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that government-controlled markets drastically increases poverty.

Furthermore, every other developed nation which has far inferior healthcare to the United States (far inferior). So much for that "wonderful" healthcare in that "developed" nation of Canada, eh?

Canadian PM has heart surgery -- in the U.S.

Super rich people come here to get healthcare....point? That has Zero relation to poverty...none, zilch, nada.

If you're "beyond a shadow of a doubt" were true, China would not be sky-rocketing economically for the last 30 plus years...unless you wanna make some claim they aren't government controlled. I'm not arguing free markets are "bad" but everything can be taken in moderation. I'd argue that the "intense" free market globalization we see today is increasing inequality at a rate we've never seen before.

Please tell me you don't actually believe that? China has some of the most rampant poverty in the world.

Furthermore, China has experienced false "prosperity". There is only so long a nation can build massive ghost cities (just to put people to work and create the illusion of a strong, prosperous economy) before you run out of room and/or the bottom falls out of it all.

Surreal: Get a Closer Look at China's Largest Ghost City | Video | TheBlaze.com

Poverty in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[ShawnChris13]

History has proven no such thing, since there's never been a true "free market" economy in the history of the world.







And if "every other developed nation" has "far inferior" healthcare compared to us, why are the people in those countries so much happier with their healthcare than we are?

People love their health care. People hate their health care. It's the same everywhere. Don't try to use opinions as factual arguments.

I'm discussing the fact that a much higher percentage of people in England respond that they are "happy" with their healthcare than US citizens. That's not an opinion.

You're using opinions from random surveys as facts. I'm glad people like their health care in England. But guess what? No one cares. 3,000 pages of a law and instead of referencing the good things you like in that law you preach about England and Canada. Americans don't give two flying ***** about either one of those places.

 

[P@triot]

The same one where CEO pay tripled and worker wages have stagnated since? Sounds like the "Great Leap Forward", or other insane attempts at fixing economies.

So tell me the part where Reagan placed restrictions on "workers wages" and ensured they were limited in their salary opportunities?

If the worker's wage "stagnated" under Reagan, it's because the worker's productivity and personal development "stagnated". If a worker expect to make six-figures working on an assembly line, that worker is an idiot with zero understanding of basic economics and business.

The problem with the left is that they literally have zero understanding of what dictates a persons salary. It never ceases to leave my jaw on the floor listening to a Democrat explain their theory of what determines a persons salary.

What do you say Xarm - care to give it a shot?

Do you know how to have a civil debate without ad hominem attacks? Worker productivity actually increased exponentially as wages stayed the same. That means the economy was stimulated on the backbone of workers being underpaid.

What "attack"? What was "uncivil"? Did I tell you to go fuck yourself? Did I hurl personal insults at you? Good grief, are you a bit sensitive? What exactly did I do?

Again, if wages stayed the same, the worker has nobody to blame but themselves. Under Reagan, taxes were lowered and restrictions were removed. Freeing up the market frees up the worker. The sky was the limit for them. If they were not paid what they felt was fair, why didn't they take their skill set and go somewhere else?

 

[theDoctorisIn]

People love their health care. People hate their health care. It's the same everywhere. Don't try to use opinions as factual arguments.

I'm discussing the fact that a much higher percentage of people in England respond that they are "happy" with their healthcare than US citizens. That's not an opinion.

You're using opinions from random surveys as facts. I'm glad people like their health care in England. But guess what? No one cares. 3,000 pages of a law and instead of referencing the good things you like in that law you preach about England and Canada. Americans don't give two flying ***** about either one of those places.

I don't like anything about Obamacare. What the fuck are you talking about?