Who's Afraid of Socialism?

[Toddsterpatriot]

And what do you have when government people are working for no paycheck? Hey, what an incentive that is for air traffic controllers.

Government workers GET ALL THEIR BACK PAY after a government shutdown. They don't lose a dime. They often have employment FOR LIFE with no fear of layoffs, then get big pensions, full healthcare benefits for life, after working as little as twenty years. Plus, they usually have pretty stress free jobs.

So your excuse is "the check is in the mail". And the fact that it's in the mail and not in the hand "won't hurt a bit".

I love to watch pretzels being made.

Poor overpaid federal employees might have to tighten their belts for a week or two. Waah.

 

[McRocket]

Then, with respect, I suggest you take it up with the people who create dictionaries AND encyclopedia's.

'socialism

NOUN
mass noun

• 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'

socialism | Definition of socialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries


'Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.'

socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts


Good day.

I am simply suggesting that you further your understanding of socioeconomic systems beyond what is contained in a given dictionary. Your choice to do it or not.

So...you want me to disregard what the word actually means and try and find what it doesn't?

Pass.

And I suggest you re-evaluate your apparent, ad hoc belief about what 'socialism' actually is.

I find that many people on the left have an idealistic view of 'socialism'. That they try and pigeon hole it to mean whatever they want.
No offense, that seems to be what you are doing as well.

Words have a meaning. Socialism is no different.

If you want to call a banana an apple - that is your right.

But I suggest you come up with a new term to describe what it is you want 'socialism' to be...rather then just calling your version - erroneously - 'socialism'.

Your choice to do it or not.

I lived in Canada for years and there are aspects of 'semi-socialistic type' governments that are good. Some that are bad.
But socialism - as it currently means in the English language - is bad, IMO.


Good day.

Do you consider the ACA Socialism?

If by ACA you mean Obamacare? No.

Socialism - by definition - means governments runs ALL of the economy.

I would call it 'socialistic'.


BTW, I lived for years in Canada and I know FAR more about 'socialistic', single-payer healthcare than most Americans.

And - if you are poor. It's (relatively) great.
If you aren't. It ain't.

You are treated like a number (as they have no competition), waiting times can be HORRENDOUS (years and years in some cases), drugs are 100% NOT covered (unless you are poor) AND you can be trapped in hospitals (waiting for surgery) for months.
Trapped you say?
Yup.
If you leave - they can threaten to push you down the waiting list. And since you have no alternative, you MUST stay in hospital for as long as they want you to.
I knew a guy who was trapped on the cardiac floor of a hospital for over a month waiting for a bypass operation. He could not even leave the floor. He was not even allowed to go onto the elevator. He was not hooked up to any machines or on any exotic medication. He just lied around - waiting. He was miserable and trapped.
And he ended up dying in that hospital when the surgery went wrong.

Anyone who says single-payer is great for everyone simply does not know what they are talking about.

Multi-payer is the answer, IMO. Government healthcare for the poor/those who cannot afford it. Private healthcare for everyone else.

The ACA / PPACA & Obamacare are all the same. They were attacked over and over by the Right Wing / Special Interests' and the GOP (beneficiaries of the special interests) to label health care reform as Socialism. It is not that, and it is not single payer and it is not "socialistic" (whatever that means).

It is a public / private means of providing health insurance, subsidized by tax dollars for those who could not afford it; to provide preventative care at no cost to the citizens and for insurance for those who would have been denied insurance because of an active.

In my opinion, the Republican's support those who ideology is, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you", aka, the creed of Callous Conservatism.

I did not say Obamacare was single-payer. I do think it is 'socialistic' in that it is a government control over a large section of the healthcare economy.

I was merely referring to the fact that single-payer is undoubtedly going to be on the Democrat to-do list in 2020. And people should understand what they are voting for.

It is NOT a cure all. Yes, it is probably better than what America has now. But it has HUGE negatives that I do not think most Democrats (especially progressives) are willing to look at.

On the flip side - Reps need to understand that if they are not willing to compromise a WHOLE lot on government healthcare, they are going to have single-payer rammed down their throats one day...whether they like it or not.


Finally, I have NEVER liked Obamacare. It started out as a nice idea to provide healthcare insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who had none.
So far, so good. And I bet you it would have passed through Congress at that level.
But Dems refused to stop there...they got greedy. They tried to make it MUCH bigger.
Result? They ended up with a bloated whale that they only got through by a whisker that was DOA the minute the Reps took back power.
And if the GOP had got their excrement together in 2017 - Obamacare would have been killed off then.

Obamacare is not the answer, IMO. A multi-payer one is with government helping those who need it and everyone else using the private sector...with the government staying OUT of the latter completely.

 

[McRocket]

No idea what you are trying to say here - except that it is about socialism.

Here is the definition of socialism:

'socialism
noun
so·cial·ism | \ˈsō-shə-ˌli-zəm \
Definition of socialism


1: any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

2a: a system of society or group living in which there is no private property

b: a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state'

Definition of SOCIALISM

Socialism means the state runs the economy...BY DEFINITION.

That is BIG government and I am 100% against it.

It is not quite that simple and it is misleading to define socialism as government control over the economy.

More to the point, Socialism is a system of producing goods sans capital.

Then, with respect, I suggest you take it up with the people who create dictionaries AND encyclopedia's.

'socialism

NOUN
mass noun

• 1A political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.'

socialism | Definition of socialism in English by Oxford Dictionaries


'Socialism, social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.'

socialism | Definition, History, Examples, & Facts


Good day.

I am simply suggesting that you further your understanding of socioeconomic systems beyond what is contained in a given dictionary. Your choice to do it or not.

So...you want me to disregard what the word actually means and try and find what it doesn't?

Pass.

And I suggest you re-evaluate your apparent, ad hoc belief about what 'socialism' actually is.

I find that many people on the left have an idealistic view of 'socialism'. That they try and pigeon hole it to mean whatever they want.
No offense, that seems to be what you are doing as well.

Words have a meaning. Socialism is no different.

If you want to call a banana an apple - that is your right.

But I suggest you come up with a new term to describe what it is you want 'socialism' to be...rather then just calling your version - erroneously - 'socialism'.

Your choice to do it or not.

I lived in Canada for years and there are aspects of 'semi-socialistic type' governments that are good. Some that are bad.
But socialism - as it currently means in the English language - is bad, IMO.


Good day.

I am defining it the way it has been done since before Oxford English Dictionary existed. I am defining it the way it was done by Karl Marx, the foremost philosopher of socialism. You wouldn't know that. In the context of this thread, people fear what they don't understand, and the American people don't understand socialism, that is clearly evident.

LOL...great.

So now let's just abandon what words mean today and go by what they used to mean to certain people in the nineteenth century.

Oh....that's brilliant.

27 Words That Used To Mean Something Totally Different

Like it or not...the modern world has a definition of 'socialism'. I don't even begin to care what Marx or ANYONE ELSE used to think it meant.

You want to reject what the UNIVERSAL MEANING of 'socialism' is...that is your choice. Live in the past all you wish.

I choose to judge words on their 21'st rather then their 19'th century meaning.

How bizarre, huh?


Now since your mind is clearly, COMPLETELY closed on this - I see no point in further discussion.


Have a monsterful day.

27 Delightful Obsolete Words It's High Time We Revived

 

[Tax Man]

I have no problem with socialism. I do have a problem with people combining communism with socialism. Communism is not Socialism.

 

[Desperado]

I have no problem with socialism. I do have a problem with people combining communism with socialism. Communism is not Socialism.

 

[jc456]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

when one loves lazy!!!!

 

[georgephillip]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Who's Afraid of Socialism?
Nobody who needs other people’s shit to survive is “afraid of socialism”. We know this for sure.

How do you suppose 4% of the world's population acquires 25% of the world's wealth?

How do you suppose 4% of the world's population acquires 25% of the world's wealth?

By creating goods and services that people willingly buy with their money.

How about creating a global monetary order that permits the US to run ever deeper into debt without any foreign constraint, based on a rabid military empire responsible for the ma$$ killing, maiming, and displacement of million$ of innocent human beings since 1945.

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 "Victim Nations" Since World War II - Global Research

 

[georgephillip]

Only socialism takes other people's money. Socialism is when I collect social security, or food stamps, which is money stolen from other people.

Do you pay FICA taxes?
Do you know (care) how many children depend on food stamps to eat regularly?
Capitalists "earn" profit by exploiting their own workers and the natural resources of foreign states with inferior national defenses.
If you take pride in that, it's due entirely to an accident of birth.

Özden Terli on Twitter

 

[georgephillip]

Why do you think every socialist system ends up impoverished, and every capitalist system ends up wealthy? Why do you think western countries built on capitalism, are the countries people are trying to get to?

Here's a big reason why western countries built on capitalism are magnets for migrants:

Washington Consensus - Wikipedia

"The Washington Consensus is a set of 10 economic policy prescriptions considered to constitute the 'standard' reform package promoted for crisis-wracked developing countries by Washington, D.C.-based institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Bank and United States Department of the Treasury.[1]

"The term was first used in 1989 by English economist John Williamson.[2]

"The prescriptions encompassed policies in such areas as macroeconomic stabilization, economic opening with respect to both trade and investment, and the expansion of market forces within the domestic economy."

It's because countries built on capitalism finance their Long Wars with other nation's resources, land, labor, and capital.

https://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/superimperialism.pdf (P. 4)

"America’s war in Vietnam and Southeast Asia in the 1960s seemed to follow this time-honored scenario. U.S. overseas military spending ended up in the hands of foreign central banks, especially France, whose banks were the dominant financial institutions in Indo-China.

"Central banks cashed in these for gold nearly on a monthly basis from the 1965 troop buildup onward. Germany did on a quiet scale what General de Gaulle did with great fanfare in cashing in the dollars sent from France’s former colonies.

" By 1971 the U.S. dollar’s gold cover – legally 25 percent for Federal Reserve currency – was nearly depleted, and America withdrew from the London Gold Pool.

"The dollar no longer could be redeemed for gold at $35 an ounce.

"It seemed at the time that the Vietnam War had cost America its world financial position, just as World War I had stripped Britain and the rest of Europe of their financial leadership as a result of their Inter-Ally arms debts to the United States.

" But in going off gold the United States created a new kind of international financial system. It was a double standard, that is, the dollar-debt standard.

"The consequences can be seen today."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Who's Afraid of Socialism?
Nobody who needs other people’s shit to survive is “afraid of socialism”. We know this for sure.

How do you suppose 4% of the world's population acquires 25% of the world's wealth?

How do you suppose 4% of the world's population acquires 25% of the world's wealth?

By creating goods and services that people willingly buy with their money.

How about creating a global monetary order that permits the US to run ever deeper into debt without any foreign constraint, based on a rabid military empire responsible for the ma$$ killing, maiming, and displacement of million$ of innocent human beings since 1945.

US Has Killed More Than 20 Million People in 37 "Victim Nations" Since World War II - Global Research

How about creating a global monetary order that permits the US to run ever deeper into debt without any foreign constraint,

No foreign constraint? What gave you that (incorrect) idea?

 

[Wry Catcher]

I am simply suggesting that you further your understanding of socioeconomic systems beyond what is contained in a given dictionary. Your choice to do it or not.

So...you want me to disregard what the word actually means and try and find what it doesn't?

Pass.

And I suggest you re-evaluate your apparent, ad hoc belief about what 'socialism' actually is.

I find that many people on the left have an idealistic view of 'socialism'. That they try and pigeon hole it to mean whatever they want.
No offense, that seems to be what you are doing as well.

Words have a meaning. Socialism is no different.

If you want to call a banana an apple - that is your right.

But I suggest you come up with a new term to describe what it is you want 'socialism' to be...rather then just calling your version - erroneously - 'socialism'.

Your choice to do it or not.

I lived in Canada for years and there are aspects of 'semi-socialistic type' governments that are good. Some that are bad.
But socialism - as it currently means in the English language - is bad, IMO.


Good day.

Do you consider the ACA Socialism?

If by ACA you mean Obamacare? No.

Socialism - by definition - means governments runs ALL of the economy.

I would call it 'socialistic'.


BTW, I lived for years in Canada and I know FAR more about 'socialistic', single-payer healthcare than most Americans.

And - if you are poor. It's (relatively) great.
If you aren't. It ain't.

You are treated like a number (as they have no competition), waiting times can be HORRENDOUS (years and years in some cases), drugs are 100% NOT covered (unless you are poor) AND you can be trapped in hospitals (waiting for surgery) for months.
Trapped you say?
Yup.
If you leave - they can threaten to push you down the waiting list. And since you have no alternative, you MUST stay in hospital for as long as they want you to.
I knew a guy who was trapped on the cardiac floor of a hospital for over a month waiting for a bypass operation. He could not even leave the floor. He was not even allowed to go onto the elevator. He was not hooked up to any machines or on any exotic medication. He just lied around - waiting. He was miserable and trapped.
And he ended up dying in that hospital when the surgery went wrong.

Anyone who says single-payer is great for everyone simply does not know what they are talking about.

Multi-payer is the answer, IMO. Government healthcare for the poor/those who cannot afford it. Private healthcare for everyone else.

The ACA / PPACA & Obamacare are all the same. They were attacked over and over by the Right Wing / Special Interests' and the GOP (beneficiaries of the special interests) to label health care reform as Socialism. It is not that, and it is not single payer and it is not "socialistic" (whatever that means).

It is a public / private means of providing health insurance, subsidized by tax dollars for those who could not afford it; to provide preventative care at no cost to the citizens and for insurance for those who would have been denied insurance because of an active.

In my opinion, the Republican's support those who ideology is, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you", aka, the creed of Callous Conservatism.

I did not say Obamacare was single-payer. I do think it is 'socialistic' in that it is a government control over a large section of the healthcare economy.

I was merely referring to the fact that single-payer is undoubtedly going to be on the Democrat to-do list in 2020. And people should understand what they are voting for.

It is NOT a cure all. Yes, it is probably better than what America has now. But it has HUGE negatives that I do not think most Democrats (especially progressives) are willing to look at.

On the flip side - Reps need to understand that if they are not willing to compromise a WHOLE lot on government healthcare, they are going to have single-payer rammed down their throats one day...whether they like it or not.


Finally, I have NEVER liked Obamacare. It started out as a nice idea to provide healthcare insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who had none.
So far, so good. And I bet you it would have passed through Congress at that level.
But Dems refused to stop there...they got greedy. They tried to make it MUCH bigger.
Result? They ended up with a bloated whale that they only got through by a whisker that was DOA the minute the Reps took back power.
And if the GOP had got their excrement together in 2017 - Obamacare would have been killed off then.

Obamacare is not the answer, IMO. A multi-payer one is with government helping those who need it and everyone else using the private sector...with the government staying OUT of the latter completely.

Private Insurance companies will be around even if a single payer system is put in motion, thus, people like you can pay more and be happy your premiums go to some CEO and sales agent, and not to someone poor, needy or suffering from a serious condition, and cannot buy private insurance.

 

[Ambivalent1]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

FDR's crap failed. WWII brought us out of it.

 

[Ambivalent1]

So...you want me to disregard what the word actually means and try and find what it doesn't?

Pass.

And I suggest you re-evaluate your apparent, ad hoc belief about what 'socialism' actually is.

I find that many people on the left have an idealistic view of 'socialism'. That they try and pigeon hole it to mean whatever they want.
No offense, that seems to be what you are doing as well.

Words have a meaning. Socialism is no different.

If you want to call a banana an apple - that is your right.

But I suggest you come up with a new term to describe what it is you want 'socialism' to be...rather then just calling your version - erroneously - 'socialism'.

Your choice to do it or not.

I lived in Canada for years and there are aspects of 'semi-socialistic type' governments that are good. Some that are bad.
But socialism - as it currently means in the English language - is bad, IMO.


Good day.

Do you consider the ACA Socialism?

If by ACA you mean Obamacare? No.

Socialism - by definition - means governments runs ALL of the economy.

I would call it 'socialistic'.


BTW, I lived for years in Canada and I know FAR more about 'socialistic', single-payer healthcare than most Americans.

And - if you are poor. It's (relatively) great.
If you aren't. It ain't.

You are treated like a number (as they have no competition), waiting times can be HORRENDOUS (years and years in some cases), drugs are 100% NOT covered (unless you are poor) AND you can be trapped in hospitals (waiting for surgery) for months.
Trapped you say?
Yup.
If you leave - they can threaten to push you down the waiting list. And since you have no alternative, you MUST stay in hospital for as long as they want you to.
I knew a guy who was trapped on the cardiac floor of a hospital for over a month waiting for a bypass operation. He could not even leave the floor. He was not even allowed to go onto the elevator. He was not hooked up to any machines or on any exotic medication. He just lied around - waiting. He was miserable and trapped.
And he ended up dying in that hospital when the surgery went wrong.

Anyone who says single-payer is great for everyone simply does not know what they are talking about.

Multi-payer is the answer, IMO. Government healthcare for the poor/those who cannot afford it. Private healthcare for everyone else.

The ACA / PPACA & Obamacare are all the same. They were attacked over and over by the Right Wing / Special Interests' and the GOP (beneficiaries of the special interests) to label health care reform as Socialism. It is not that, and it is not single payer and it is not "socialistic" (whatever that means).

It is a public / private means of providing health insurance, subsidized by tax dollars for those who could not afford it; to provide preventative care at no cost to the citizens and for insurance for those who would have been denied insurance because of an active.

In my opinion, the Republican's support those who ideology is, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you", aka, the creed of Callous Conservatism.

I did not say Obamacare was single-payer. I do think it is 'socialistic' in that it is a government control over a large section of the healthcare economy.

I was merely referring to the fact that single-payer is undoubtedly going to be on the Democrat to-do list in 2020. And people should understand what they are voting for.

It is NOT a cure all. Yes, it is probably better than what America has now. But it has HUGE negatives that I do not think most Democrats (especially progressives) are willing to look at.

On the flip side - Reps need to understand that if they are not willing to compromise a WHOLE lot on government healthcare, they are going to have single-payer rammed down their throats one day...whether they like it or not.


Finally, I have NEVER liked Obamacare. It started out as a nice idea to provide healthcare insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who had none.
So far, so good. And I bet you it would have passed through Congress at that level.
But Dems refused to stop there...they got greedy. They tried to make it MUCH bigger.
Result? They ended up with a bloated whale that they only got through by a whisker that was DOA the minute the Reps took back power.
And if the GOP had got their excrement together in 2017 - Obamacare would have been killed off then.

Obamacare is not the answer, IMO. A multi-payer one is with government helping those who need it and everyone else using the private sector...with the government staying OUT of the latter completely.

Private Insurance companies will be around even if a single payer system is put in motion, thus, people like you can pay more and be happy your premiums go to some CEO and sales agent, and not to someone poor, needy or suffering from a serious condition, and cannot buy private insurance.

Only in an administrative capacity.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Do you consider the ACA Socialism?

If by ACA you mean Obamacare? No.

Socialism - by definition - means governments runs ALL of the economy.

I would call it 'socialistic'.


BTW, I lived for years in Canada and I know FAR more about 'socialistic', single-payer healthcare than most Americans.

And - if you are poor. It's (relatively) great.
If you aren't. It ain't.

You are treated like a number (as they have no competition), waiting times can be HORRENDOUS (years and years in some cases), drugs are 100% NOT covered (unless you are poor) AND you can be trapped in hospitals (waiting for surgery) for months.
Trapped you say?
Yup.
If you leave - they can threaten to push you down the waiting list. And since you have no alternative, you MUST stay in hospital for as long as they want you to.
I knew a guy who was trapped on the cardiac floor of a hospital for over a month waiting for a bypass operation. He could not even leave the floor. He was not even allowed to go onto the elevator. He was not hooked up to any machines or on any exotic medication. He just lied around - waiting. He was miserable and trapped.
And he ended up dying in that hospital when the surgery went wrong.

Anyone who says single-payer is great for everyone simply does not know what they are talking about.

Multi-payer is the answer, IMO. Government healthcare for the poor/those who cannot afford it. Private healthcare for everyone else.

The ACA / PPACA & Obamacare are all the same. They were attacked over and over by the Right Wing / Special Interests' and the GOP (beneficiaries of the special interests) to label health care reform as Socialism. It is not that, and it is not single payer and it is not "socialistic" (whatever that means).

It is a public / private means of providing health insurance, subsidized by tax dollars for those who could not afford it; to provide preventative care at no cost to the citizens and for insurance for those who would have been denied insurance because of an active.

In my opinion, the Republican's support those who ideology is, "I got mine, fuck the rest of you", aka, the creed of Callous Conservatism.

I did not say Obamacare was single-payer. I do think it is 'socialistic' in that it is a government control over a large section of the healthcare economy.

I was merely referring to the fact that single-payer is undoubtedly going to be on the Democrat to-do list in 2020. And people should understand what they are voting for.

It is NOT a cure all. Yes, it is probably better than what America has now. But it has HUGE negatives that I do not think most Democrats (especially progressives) are willing to look at.

On the flip side - Reps need to understand that if they are not willing to compromise a WHOLE lot on government healthcare, they are going to have single-payer rammed down their throats one day...whether they like it or not.


Finally, I have NEVER liked Obamacare. It started out as a nice idea to provide healthcare insurance to the tens of millions of Americans who had none.
So far, so good. And I bet you it would have passed through Congress at that level.
But Dems refused to stop there...they got greedy. They tried to make it MUCH bigger.
Result? They ended up with a bloated whale that they only got through by a whisker that was DOA the minute the Reps took back power.
And if the GOP had got their excrement together in 2017 - Obamacare would have been killed off then.

Obamacare is not the answer, IMO. A multi-payer one is with government helping those who need it and everyone else using the private sector...with the government staying OUT of the latter completely.

Private Insurance companies will be around even if a single payer system is put in motion, thus, people like you can pay more and be happy your premiums go to some CEO and sales agent, and not to someone poor, needy or suffering from a serious condition, and cannot buy private insurance.

Only in an administrative capacity.

Bullshit.

 

[Issa]

No thanks. One need not look any further than europe to see what a travesty it is.

Have you ever been to Europe? Have you lived in Europe?
You live in a socialist country, 54% of the budget go to the Military....But hey they don't have money to treat the sick Americans and it's socialist....Australia who has a better and free education system, universal health care, lower poverty rate, higher minimum wage than the US, spends only 2% of its budget on military toys.....socialism is VERY BAD.

Australia has a lower poverty rate only because it isn't overrun by illegal aliens from a third world country. Everything government does is easier when it doesn't have to deal with such problems.

Australia can afford to spend only 2% on its military budget only because America provides most of its defense.

Our education system is also socialist, so comparing it to vaunt the superiority of socialism just doesn't compute.

Ready to face facts?
You said Australia os not overrun by illegals...wrong they have 10 tons of thousands of them , and the influx continues.
You said the US provides most of Australia's defense...show us neighbors please.
And you also said our education system is socialist , which is wrong...because it costs thousands of dollars to get a bachelors, parents save qll their lives to send their kids to college, millions of students are in debt because they decided to go to college not even close to australian students.

Sir, do you just like to throw out lies without facts like the orange? Because everything you said has 0 merit. Do you like to argue with fabricated lies?

 

[Issa]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Anybody with any common sense or capacity to commit logic is afraid of socialism. All you have to do is look at Venezuela to see why you have to be insane to adopt such economic policies.

Huh? Venezuela ? because they keep feeding you that on fox news? How about Switzerland, Holland, Scandavian countries, Australia, and so many more that their citizens enjoy free health care, decent vacation times, decent wages, decent sick times, free education and a very good safety net?

Switzerland, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and Australia aren't socialist. The United States is more socialist than they are

From the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom:

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

rank country overall change
1 Hong Kong 90.2 0.4
2 Singapore 88.8 0.2
3 New Zealand 84.2 0.5
4 Switzerland 81.7 0.2
5 Australia 80.9 -0.1
6 Ireland 80.4 3.7
12 Denmark 76.6 +1.5
15 Sweden 76.3 +1.4
17 Netherlands 76.2 +0.4
18 United States 75.7 +0.6
179 Venezuela 25.2 -1.8

Define socialism.
Cause I know those countries like i know the US.
You pay thousands for medical coverage they dont.
You pay thousands for education they dont.
They lose their job they get generous assistance, here in the US you will end up homeles after a brief period.

 

[hazlnut]

No thanks. One need not look any further than europe to see what a travesty it is.

Libraries, public schools, military...

 

[hazlnut]

No thanks. One need not look any further than europe to see what a travesty it is.

Have you ever been to Europe? Have you lived in Europe?
You live in a socialist country, 54% of the budget go to the Military....But hey they don't have money to treat the sick Americans and it's socialist....Australia who has a better and free education system, universal health care, lower poverty rate, higher minimum wage than the US, spends only 2% of its budget on military toys.....socialism is VERY BAD.

Australia has a lower poverty rate only because it isn't overrun by illegal aliens from a third world country. Everything government does is easier when it doesn't have to deal with such problems.

Australia can afford to spend only 2% on its military budget only because America provides most of its defense.

Our education system is also socialist, so comparing it to vaunt the superiority of socialism just doesn't compute.

Ready to face facts?
You said Australia os not overrun by illegals...wrong they have 10 tons of thousands of them , and the influx continues.
You said the US provides most of Australia's defense...show us neighbors please.
And you also said our education system is socialist , which is wrong...because it costs thousands of dollars to get a bachelors, parents save qll their lives to send their kids to college, millions of students are in debt because they decided to go to college not even close to australian students.

Sir, do you just like to throw out lies without facts like the orange? Because everything you said has 0 merit. Do you like to argue with fabricated lies?

10 tons of thousands...??

WTF

 

[Desperado]

Who’s Afraid of Socialism? | Open Media Boston

"Capitalism’s incompatibility with majority interests has been reaffirmed by the current economic crisis.

"Earlier, the most severe effects of capitalism had been offset, within the US, by the progressive reforms of the 1930s.

"But capital’s political power was less restrained in this country than it was in the other rich countries.

"Flush with military might and bolstered by a mass right-wing culture of arrogant self-righteousness, US capital launched a withering counterattack against the New Deal legacy, culminating in an almost three-decade orgy of anti-welfare legislation, imperialist aggression, privatization, and deregulation."

Unrestrained profit maximization results in concentrating an enormous amount of surplus capital which can find few safe investments.

"Free market" capitalists turn to highly speculative scams which generate financial bubbles as the real economy continues to be hollowed out and the working class is driven deeper into debt.

Socialism would turn to government for an alternative, but US government is Goldman Sachs regardless of which major party is in control.

Anybody with any common sense or capacity to commit logic is afraid of socialism. All you have to do is look at Venezuela to see why you have to be insane to adopt such economic policies.

Huh? Venezuela ? because they keep feeding you that on fox news? How about Switzerland, Holland, Scandavian countries, Australia, and so many more that their citizens enjoy free health care, decent vacation times, decent wages, decent sick times, free education and a very good safety net?

Switzerland, Holland, the Scandinavian countries and Australia aren't socialist. The United States is more socialist than they are

From the Heritage Index of Economic Freedom:

Country Rankings: World & Global Economy Rankings on Economic Freedom

rank country overall change
1 Hong Kong 90.2 0.4
2 Singapore 88.8 0.2
3 New Zealand 84.2 0.5
4 Switzerland 81.7 0.2
5 Australia 80.9 -0.1
6 Ireland 80.4 3.7
12 Denmark 76.6 +1.5
15 Sweden 76.3 +1.4
17 Netherlands 76.2 +0.4
18 United States 75.7 +0.6
179 Venezuela 25.2 -1.8

Define socialism.
Cause I know those countries like i know the US.
You pay thousands for medical coverage they dont.
You pay thousands for education they dont.
They lose their job they get generous assistance, here in the US you will end up homeles after a brief period.

Yet you still live in the US... even with your distaste for our system. Don;t;let the door hit you on your way out

 

[georgephillip]

How about creating a global monetary order that permits the US to run ever deeper into debt without any foreign constraint,

No foreign constraint? What gave you that (incorrect) idea?

You're ignorant of the mechanism by which the US dollar obligates foreign countries to finance US balance of payments deficits?

You're perplexed by how removing gold convertibility in 1971 allowed the US to pursue unilateral trade policies, essentially compelling foreigners to partially finance the heroic US armed forces' campaign of mass murder and displacement across Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia?

Really?