CDZ What Socialist Policies in the U.S. Have Ever Worked?

[candycorn]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

Its truly getting embarrassing. Maybe stop deflecting and parsing words (both done poorly), and maybe address the questions in the OP? It's a thought.

Look, maybe you like massive income distribution. Maybe you don't care Government mostly fucks up everything it touches. Just state why you think multi trillion dollar Government take over of large swaths of the economy is a good idea.

 

[candycorn]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

it's truly getting embarrassing.

There is nothing to defend. The programs were never meant, by the framers, to turn a profit. Your "point" has no foundation. Chirst, can you not understand this stuff? You should be embarrassed.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

it's truly getting embarrassing.

There is nothing to defend. The programs were never meant, by the framers, to turn a profit. Your "point" has no foundation. Chirst, can you not understand this stuff? You should be embarrassed.

I never said that. Please stop going in circles. Read the OP and answer. I cannot make this any simplier.

thank you.

 

[WelfareQueen]

I will keep repeating the same question no matter how much deflection takes place. It is in the OP. Please read carefully and respond.


Thank you

 

[candycorn]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

it's truly getting embarrassing.

There is nothing to defend. The programs were never meant, by the framers, to turn a profit. Your "point" has no foundation. Chirst, can you not understand this stuff? You should be embarrassed.

I never said that. Please stop going in circles. Read the OP and answer. I cannot make this any simplier.

thank you.

It is exactly what you said:

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?
By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The intent isn't to lose trillions of dollars. Its explicit that there will be no profit made from the programs and whatever they cost, is what they cost. If you think that is the "intent", your programming is faulty.

 

[Nosmo King]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Why is the postal service in trouble? Because it is forced to pay retirees yet to be born. 75 years of retiree benefits makes sense how?

Standardized testing shows how elastic teaching philosophies can be. A template is drawn and curriculum is shaped to fit. Teach the test, without regard for the widest education possible, teachers are basically prompters for students on Jeopardy.

Amtrack is broke because the United States, unlike every other G7 nation, has no intercontinental high speed rail network. The United States is running the equivalent stagecoach as rail service in a space station world. Do you realize how much less pollution from travel alone would result?

Medicare and Social Security were relatively safer than everything listed above. Right up until their funding source, the payroll tax, was just suspended. Suspended. That means employers will have to make up the shortfall in the end.

How will that serve to jump start the economy? How can a ballon payment on payroll taxes serve the "super v"?

 

[alang1216]

However, the military procurement system is Government run and woefully inefficient, costly, and poorly run.

That's cronyism, not socialism.

You said the socialist Government run programs mentioned in the OP were never intended to make money.

All of them have lost trillions. I will now ask for a third time, are Government socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare for all also intended to not make money and cost we the people trillions?

It is a simple question, not sure why you keep avoiding it.

I'm.not avoiding anything. You are asking stupid question. A program that was never designed to make a profit cannot be described as "losing trillions". They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on. When you go to the grocery store do you say you lost money? Pull yer head outta the RWNJ infotainment sphere and try looking at actual reality for a change. Drop the loaded terms like "socialism" and see these programs for what they are, instead of what Rush Limbaugh told you they were.

Wake up, think for yourself.

" They aren't losing money, they are spending it on the things they were set up to spend it on "

LOL, too funny. Semantics are for truly weak people.


Definition of lose money

: to spend more money than one earnsThe company has been losing money for the past several years.

I borrowed more money than I had to buy a house. Best INVESTMENT of my life.

The definition of losing money is spending more than you bring in. Your post is buying a house has nothing to do with losing money in this situation you obviously could afford the payments.

If the Feds increased the deficit to build a bridge that would allow new businesses to flourish wouldn't that be the same thing? If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think.

" If they increased the deficit to return money to taxpayers that would be something very different I would think. "

So the Feds would "borrow" money and give the money they took from the taxpayer BACK to the taxpayer which the taxpayer in the end has to pay back to the Feds? You go with that counselor.

I was describing Trump's tax cuts. He cut taxes but not spending.

NOBODY EVER cuts spending.

Another sad thing we can agree on. NOBODY EVER cuts spending and, thanks to Trump's tax cuts, the Feds would "borrow" money and give the money they took from the taxpayer BACK to the taxpayer which the taxpayer in the end has to pay back to the Feds

 

[alang1216]

No one has ever called the military socialist. Both stupid and ridiculous.

Agreed, it is a model of Communism. Central planning, command-driven economy, almost no private property, limited personal freedom, unelected leaders, and no profits.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Only right wingers believe they can do a better job; but only help the richest get richer while the Poor get more debt.

 

[danielpalos]

No Government socialist program works period. No one has ever called the military socialist. Both stupid and ridiculous.

This is the clean debate zone. Nobody takes the right seriously. All right wingers know how to do bear false witness, appeal to ignorance, and practice the abomination of hypocrisy (unto God).

Only non-liberal snowflakes, do that.

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

Your whole point was they lose money. They are expected to lose money and unless you can prove differently your point is invalid.

Can you prove any of these programs was supposed to be profitable?

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

Its truly getting embarrassing. Maybe stop deflecting and parsing words (both done poorly), and maybe address the questions in the OP? It's a thought.

Look, maybe you like massive income distribution. Maybe you don't care Government mostly fucks up everything it touches. Just state why you think multi trillion dollar Government take over of large swaths of the economy is a good idea.

You're arguing from a nonexistent point. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat or rephrase it it still isn't a valid point. Just stop. You lost. It's over.

 

[Crepitus]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

it's truly getting embarrassing.

There is nothing to defend. The programs were never meant, by the framers, to turn a profit. Your "point" has no foundation. Chirst, can you not understand this stuff? You should be embarrassed.

I never said that. Please stop going in circles. Read the OP and answer. I cannot make this any simplier.

thank you.

Your op is all about how much money they "lose". It's a been answered over and over and over. Your point is invalid. Get over it.

 

[22lcidw]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Only right wingers believe they can do a better job; but only help the richest get richer while the Poor get more debt.

You have done a pretty good job of that on your own. You don't give yourselves enough credit for that. People get away from you and restart the cycle over again, only with more people educated in your way of thinking.

 

[danielpalos]

This is a sincere question as I can honestly think of none.


1. U.S. Postal Service. Bankrupt while Fed Ex and UPS make billions.

2. Public Education System. One of the worst in the Western world.

3. Amtrak. Bankrupt.

4. Medicare. Bankrupt.

5. Social Security. Bankrupt.

All of these institutions are generally woefully inefficient and poorly run. So why should we want a Democrat Party agenda that only proposes more of the same?

Only right wingers believe they can do a better job; but only help the richest get richer while the Poor get more debt.

You have done a pretty good job of that on your own. You don't give yourselves enough credit for that. People get away from you and restart the cycle over again, only with more people educated in your way of thinking.

I resort to the fewest fallacies and must be the truest witness bearer as a result. Nothing wrong with being moral with a McCarthy era phrase in our pledge.

 

[sartre play]

Do not care if Social security, Medicare, the post office the nations electric grid, roads bridges, library's National parks or anything else that is set up to serve all Americans make money or lose money. I support them all.

 

[WelfareQueen]

The mistake you are making is in assuming those things were supposed to be money making endeavors. They were never expected to turn a profit.

Did find this on line, and it strikes me as funny.

One of the best examples of “socialism” in the United States - and an ironic one - is the National Football League.

1. The worst teams get the first shot at the best new players in each year’s draft
2. The salary cap structure makes it difficult to keep a dominant team together for more than a few years, and generally prevents dynasties from forming - the New England Patriots have stayed so good for so long by constantly cycling through new talent rather than by signing a lot of expensive superstars
3. In the provision that is the closest to actual socialism, the league’s TV revenues are equally shared among all of the teams, giving every team a lucrative guaranteed income stream regardless of specific quality of team play

So the Government starts programs with the intent of losing trillions? Is that what you're saying? Is that how you would define Socialism?

By your reply can I assume the Dems are proposing the Green New Deal to lose trillions as well?

The Department of Defense is supposed to turn a profit? Who knew?

Too stupid to even comment on.

Why? It logically follows your earlier statements.

Are government programs supposed to turn a profit or not?

Make up your alleged mind.

The topic was not all Government programs. Read the OP and follow CDZ rules.

Lol, got those goalposts where you want them now?

You never refuted the OP. Inherently socialist government programs are failures. This is the clean debate zone. The OP is what is being discussed.

If you choose to discuss another topic find another thread.

But I did. These program's measure of success isn't how much money it makes. It was never meant to make money..

Your "point" is not valid.

Amtrak was absolutely promised to make money. Ditto the Postal Service which was supposed to be self-supporting.

But I did not emphasize the financial aspect you did. My point being many of these socialist programs (and the New Deal programs of social security and later Medicare are most assuredly socialist programs) have turned into giant failed ponzi schemes.

My question is simply why would we take the Democrat Position and do more of the same with the Green New Deal and Medicare for all?

My question is simple and logical. Why can't anyone answer it without deflecting or avoiding. I assume you are a proud progressive. This should be easy for you to answer.

In my opinion the track record for many Government run programs is very poor. I have provided numerous examples. Logically why should add trillions of dollars of new programs with such a poor track record?

New programs can't, by definition, have a poor track record.

The USPS is in the Constitution. That someone came by later and said they could make it self-supporting is their problem.

Ah....I stipulated the existing programs with poor track records. Christ, can none of you Libs defend this stuff?

Its truly getting embarrassing. Maybe stop deflecting and parsing words (both done poorly), and maybe address the questions in the OP? It's a thought.

Look, maybe you like massive income distribution. Maybe you don't care Government mostly fucks up everything it touches. Just state why you think multi trillion dollar Government take over of large swaths of the economy is a good idea.

You're arguing from a nonexistent point. It doesn't matter how many times you repeat or rephrase it it still isn't a valid point. Just stop. You lost. It's over.

The OP never mentions money. You did. Keep repeating the same lie does not make it so.

Since you can only deflect and cannot defend socialist programs like the Green New Deal or Medicare For All you lose. Buh Bye...

 

[danielpalos]

Right wingers have a problem making money under our form of Capitalism, even with a central bank.

 

[WelfareQueen]

Do not care if Social security, Medicare, the post office the nations electric grid, roads bridges, library's National parks or anything else that is set up to serve all Americans make money or lose money. I support them all.

This issue is not money. The issue is they are inefficient and poorly run. I have now said this about 500 times. No need to further deflect on a the same point over and over.