King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-12-2015, 07:53 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 07:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 07:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Where do I sign up to be a lazy moocher? I want to get health care for free. I'd be an idiot not to. Why you got this stick up your ass to provide your own health care?

It shouldn't be free for anyone unless they're disabled or elderly. IMO poor people shouldn't get free healthcare. Shit I feel poor but have to buy my own. I had to pick up a part time second job to cover it since its mandatory now. If I have to work two jobs for the rest of my life then that's just what I have to do.

So you go ahead and bust your balls to cover your health care premiums and I'll figure out how to get that shit for free. Silly man.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2015, 09:18 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 03:49 PM)KUSA Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 09:20 AM)BnW Wrote:  Speaking of people who don't look things up......

Socialism does not advocate the state ownership of the means of production.
[Image: c161613bc5d080a2e1f3ad3cc9acd642.jpg]

You need to work on your Google-fu.

Did your eye skip over the "or regulated"? There are degrees of socialism, it's not just one thing.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2015, 09:25 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 05:03 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Many countries of the world have a Democrat Socialist political party. Most of Europe is proud of their socialist policies.

The has a socialist party. But that doesn't make it socialist. Ditto in Europe. Socialism means one specific thing--state ownership of the means of production. It's been tried many, many times and been a dismal failure every single time. The reason the socialist parties still advocate a system that has a 100% failure is because they forgot what socialism actually is. It's hard to take them seriously.

And here is the case in point...

(26-12-2015 05:03 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Canada has socialized Medicine and they are all happy with it.

Now google "does canada have socialized medicine" what does google tell you?

The Canadian health system is often referred to as “socialized” medicine, but it is actually a mix of private providers billing governments for publicly funded services.


(26-12-2015 05:03 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Norway is proud of their socialistic success.

Nope, Norway like Denmark and Sweden is decidedly capitalist, and when you measure what % of the means of production is state owned (the definition of socialism) they are successful because they are running from socialism as fast as they can. If people were actually proud of socialist systems, then how come every country but one that has tried socialism had to close the borders to keep people from fleeing?

(26-12-2015 05:03 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Are you aware that the USA is the only civilized country that does not provide health care as a right to their citizens? The Dominican Republic where the median income is somewhere around $100 USD a week per household has free medical care. But the richest country on earth cannot afford it? Criminal

I lived in Switzerland and guess what. The government doesn't pay for health care. It's private insurance. And their health system is rated one of the best in the world, tied with Japan for the highest life expectancy. source

Remember the US used to have a network of charity hospitals that provided free healthcare to all those who couldn't afford it and never turned anyone away. It was the government that abolished that system by mandating all doctors have to provide care regardless of ability to pay. And that's why the US has so many poor people with no access to healthcare. Obama, I believe, genuinely wanted to fix things and have a system more like Canada's, but as always happens, big business pulled all the stops hiring lobbyists and ended up getting to write their own regulation and now Obamacare is nothing but a gift to the big insurance companies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2015, 09:38 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 09:25 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 05:03 PM)DerFish Wrote:  Many countries of the world have a Democrat Socialist political party. Most of Europe is proud of their socialist policies.

The has a socialist party. But that doesn't make it socialist. Ditto in Europe. Socialism means one specific thing--state ownership of the means of production.

Wrong. Again.

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-12-2015, 09:57 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Firstly, only one source defines includes 'or regulated' in the definition. In wikipedia, all encyclopedia's, it means state ownership. When Karl Marx defined it, he was very clear. And during the socialist revolutions like in Russia, they understood very clearly that socialism meant state ownership.

The thing is that socialism has been a 100% failure every time it's been tried. So socialists have tried to change the definition and some have slipped in 'or regulated'. But that's absurd, because then it is so ambiguous it has no meaning. The US regulates private business. So then the US is already socialist and what's Sander's complaining about?

Socialists try playing both sides. When they say they advocate socialism, and you point out it's always been a dismal failure, they try to redefine socialism and say it includes "regulation". But then you point out that the US and every other country on the planet is already socialist. So then say "more regulation like in Scandinavia", and then you point out that the US has MORE laws and regulations on the books than any other country in the world. And now they're stuck and just say they want higher taxes. But not on their earnings--higher taxes on other (rich) people. So it's just jealousy and schadenfreude. They're basically just conservatives who like to spend other people's money.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
26-12-2015, 11:54 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 07:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 07:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Where do I sign up to be a lazy moocher? I want to get health care for free. I'd be an idiot not to. Why you got this stick up your ass to provide your own health care?

It shouldn't be free for anyone unless they're disabled or elderly. IMO poor people shouldn't get free healthcare. Shit I feel poor but have to buy my own. I had to pick up a part time second job to cover it since its mandatory now. If I have to work two jobs for the rest of my life then that's just what I have to do.

Oh. You feel poor. Well, okay then. That validates you.

Don't let those gnomes and their illusions get you down. They're just gnomes and illusions.

--Jake the Dog, Adventure Time

Alouette, je te plumerai.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2015, 01:17 AM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Firstly, only one source defines includes 'or regulated' in the definition. In wikipedia, all encyclopedia's, it means state ownership. When Karl Marx defined it, he was very clear. And during the socialist revolutions like in Russia, they understood very clearly that socialism meant state ownership.


Congrats, times change, and so can the meanings of words and how they're used. Language is amorphous and always changing, who would have thought?


(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  The thing is that socialism has been a 100% failure every time it's been tried.


Depends on the definition of Socialism being used. Whoops, there I go with nuance again, silly me...


(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So socialists have tried to change the definition and some have slipped in 'or regulated'. But that's absurd, because then it is so ambiguous it has no meaning. The US regulates private business. So then the US is already socialist and what's Sander's complaining about?


Because there is always room for improvement you inept troglodyte?

Plus the problem right now is that the government itself no longer represents the people or does what's in their best interests as it should, because private interests have undue influence in politics. Those who have more money get what they want 95% of the time, regardless of what the greater public at large desires.

Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Simply put, the government no longer serves the community as a whole. We live in an oligarchy. So I don't see a conflict between wanting a restoration of effective representative government and the removal of corporate influences and being a Socialist.



(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  Socialists try playing both sides. When they say they advocate socialism, and you point out it's always been a dismal failure, they try to redefine socialism and say it includes "regulation".


Because it does. How would Socialism operate without regulation? Government is inherently a means of regulating decision making. Facepalm


(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  But then you point out that the US and every other country on the planet is already socialist.


Uh, dictatorships and monarchies are not socialist. It's not that hard to figure out. Dodgy


(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  So then say "more regulation like in Scandinavia", and then you point out that the US has MORE laws and regulations on the books than any other country in the world.


Volume does not equate effectiveness.

Regulations put in place under the oversight of private interest, with loopholes and concessions carved out for their benefit at the expense of the public, does not constitute effective regulation for the betterment of the public interest. You know, the whole community. As in, not socialism.


(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  And now they're stuck and just say they want higher taxes. But not on their earnings--higher taxes on other (rich) people. So it's just jealousy and schadenfreude. They're basically just conservatives who like to spend other people's money.


Oh, you mean the same 0.01% that has already rigged the game so much in their favor that they netted 95% of the net wealth gains over the last two decades? The same 0.001% that makes up the wealthy elite that get paid orders of magnitude more than their average workers? Whereas in other more effectively regulated countries in Europe and Asia, the ratio is close to between ten or twenty to one; in the US, it's thousands to one.

We have the means to rebuild our infrastructure, and provide world leading universal healthcare and education to our entire population, and we can do so with a more equitable distribution of our current wealth. As of right now, wealth is being redistributed from the lower and middle class and into the hands of the people who already have more than they could ever need. We're suffering the worst wealth inequality in history, worse even than the Gilded Age that predated the Great Depression.

The government no longer represent or serves the community as a whole, it serves the wealthy elite and corporate interest. It is, therefore, an oligarchy; which is about as far as you can get from effective socialism.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-12-2015, 01:22 AM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 07:45 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 07:26 PM)GirlyMan Wrote:  Where do I sign up to be a lazy moocher? I want to get health care for free. I'd be an idiot not to. Why you got this stick up your ass to provide your own health care?

It shouldn't be free for anyone unless they're disabled or elderly. IMO poor people shouldn't get free healthcare. Shit I feel poor but have to buy my own. I had to pick up a part time second job to cover it since its mandatory now. If I have to work two jobs for the rest of my life then that's just what I have to do.


We can already afford universal healthcare (and much more), if only we stopped subsidizing the wealthiest private interests.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
27-12-2015, 10:54 AM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, you mean the same 0.01% that has already rigged the game so much in their favor that they netted 95% of the net wealth gains over the last two decades? The same 0.001% that makes up the wealthy elite that get paid orders of magnitude more than their average workers? Whereas in other more effectively regulated countries in Europe and Asia, the ratio is close to between ten or twenty to one; in the US, it's thousands to one.

I will show you how YOU (ie America left) CAUSE the very problems you're complaining about.

Start with monetary policy. Libertarians have been screaming for hundreds of years that a fiat currency concentrates all the wealth at the top. Thomas Jefferson explained it clearly. When you have a central bank that is free to print money, people think of the resulting inflation as being a rise in prices, when it's actually a decrease in the value of your money. If you there were $1000 in circulation and you have $10 and the central bank has $100, you have 1% of the money and they have 10%. If the central bank prints another $1000 and puts it in their pocket, now they have 55% of the wealth and you have 0.5%. When the federal reserve prints money, who do they give it to? To the normal, working class? Or to wall street? But it's more insidious. If you're Bill Gates, what portion of your wealth and income are denominated in dollars? Does he really have $80 billion in a savings account, or work for a fixed income? No, he has stuff (land, stocks, patents, etc.). So if the fed cuts the value of the $ in half, the loss is insignificant for him. But at the opposite end of the socioeconomic spectrum, the single-parent mom working 2 jobs just to survive and feed her kid, all of her wealth and income is in $. If the value of the $ is cut in half, she loses half her income and half her wealth.

While many factors effect inequality, for hundreds of years libertarians have been screaming this is one the biggest factors. And the data proves we were right all along. Inequality was high after WWII, but then the US signed Bretton Woods pegging the dollar to gold. From then on, inequality consistently got better, regardless of whether liberals or conservatives were in charge, the middle class grew. But this trend reversed precisely when then the pentagon papers came out and showed that America was loosing the vietnam war and it was costing way more than the government revealed. But Nixon had a dilemma because he couldn't make new gold, he couldn't print new dollars under a gold standard. He had to get the money from the American public in the form of taxes, and it would be political suicide to ask Americans to pay more taxes to fund a war they were losing. So he cancelled the gold standard to pay for Vïetnam by printing money. Of course, the people still paid, it's just that they paid with the stagflation of the 70's and not taxes, so they blamed Carter and never stopped to think that it was really a fiat currency. Ever since the US went fiat, whether liberals or conservatives are in charge, whether you have 70% tax rates like under Carter or 28% under Reagan, inequality has been getting worse and worse and the middle class wiped out.

And who is the biggest fan of a fiat currency? The very same lefties who complain about inequality. Remember what caused Ron Paul to quite medicine in the 70's and go into politics was the US switch to a fiat currency. He was screaming back in the 70's that this would result in inequality and push all the wealth to the top. And now look at your post. Were we libertarians right all along? Did it not happen exactly like we warned it would?

[Image: us-gini-index-from-1947.png]

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Plus the problem right now is that the government itself no longer represents the people or does what's in their best interests as it should, because private interests have undue influence in politics. Those who have more money get what they want 95% of the time, regardless of what the greater public at large desires.

Duh. And who advocates centralizing and concentrating all the power around a group of politicians in Washington? You guys are so slow. Don't you realize that more you centralize power, then the corporate interests can concentrate their effort on that small group in power. And the more power they have, the more corrupt they become. You keep praising Scandinavian countries, but they're successful precisely because they do the exact opposite of what the Americans who praise them advocate. They shift power to the local level, where the people can keep a better eye on their politicians and make sure they're representing their interests, and the power is decentralized and dispersed and thus harder to corrupt.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Oh, you mean the same 0.01% that has already rigged the game so much in their favor that they netted 95% of the net wealth gains over the last two decades?

Yes, and YOU GUYS ARE CAUSING IT because you haven't through what you're doing. You just see that some people have more money than you and give all the power to the politicians to redistribute the wealth oblivious to the fact that they're going to redistribute it to the people who fund their campaigns.

I've given 2 obvious examples of this stupidity:

Martin Shkreli: Hillary blasts him for raising the cost of a drug to $750/pill, and blames the free market and says the solution is more government control. But, wait, that same pill is available from a factory in the UK for only 66 cents/pill. This can't happen in a free market because Martin couldn't sell a single pill at $750 if people were given the choice of purchasing it for 66 cents from someone else. So why can't people just import it from the UK? Precisely because of the government intervention she advocates. The government/FDA tells people what they can consume and who they can buy it from, and they gave Martin Shkreli a monopoly in the US market. And Hillary wants to fix the problem by giving the government even more control.

Poverty trap: We keep screaming that if you want high taxes you have to look at the Scandinavian model and see why they determined you can't have highly progressive taxes and benefits tied to income because as you turn up the progressiveness, you make the mountain steeper to climb. For example, in the US, if you make between $10k and $40k per year, 82% of the next dollar you earn goes to the government both in new taxes and elimination of benefits. And if you live at the poverty level, this exceeds 100%, so that if your boss offers you the option of working overtime and you work longer to earn more, you will actually have LESS money to live off. Since they're already barely surviving, they simply cannot afford to work more, and are stuck in a poverty trap. I presented all this a couple years ago in this thread and I challenge you to find where any liberals can present a coherent defense of this absurd system.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  As of right now, wealth is being redistributed from the lower and middle class and into the hands of the people who already have more than they could ever need.

Yes, please stop doing it.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  We're suffering the worst wealth inequality in history, worse even than the Gilded Age that predated the Great Depression.

Yes, we know you've been very effective at it.

(27-12-2015 01:17 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  It is, therefore, an oligarchy; which is about as far as you can get from effective socialism.

Please the only countries that claimed to be truly socialist were the soviet/east countries, and recently Cuba and N. Korea. In all cases they are the most oligarchal. Again, you're advocating a system that advances that which you're complaining about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes frankksj's post
27-12-2015, 02:57 PM
RE: King Trump's s**t doesn't stink
(26-12-2015 09:57 PM)frankksj Wrote:  
(26-12-2015 09:38 PM)Chas Wrote:  Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Firstly, only one source defines includes 'or regulated' in the definition. In wikipedia, all encyclopedia's, it means state ownership. When Karl Marx defined it, he was very clear. And during the socialist revolutions like in Russia, they understood very clearly that socialism meant state ownership.

The thing is that socialism has been a 100% failure every time it's been tried. So socialists have tried to change the definition and some have slipped in 'or regulated'. But that's absurd, because then it is so ambiguous it has no meaning. The US regulates private business. So then the US is already socialist and what's Sander's complaining about?

Socialists try playing both sides. When they say they advocate socialism, and you point out it's always been a dismal failure, they try to redefine socialism and say it includes "regulation". But then you point out that the US and every other country on the planet is already socialist. So then say "more regulation like in Scandinavia", and then you point out that the US has MORE laws and regulations on the books than any other country in the world. And now they're stuck and just say they want higher taxes. But not on their earnings--higher taxes on other (rich) people. So it's just jealousy and schadenfreude. They're basically just conservatives who like to spend other people's money.

Socialism is not one thing, it is a continuum. Communism is one form of socialism, not the only one.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: