|
Post by crashdavissports on Dec 19, 2019 13:01:20 GMT -5
A major Democrat Presidential contender has self identified as a socialist so it's already on the table and needs to be discussed. His gov't takeover of health care is an example of socialism. His idea that there should not be any billionaires is socialism. His plan where gov't forces corporations to give 2 percent of their stock every year to a worker-owned and -run trust fund, until that fund controls 20 percent of the company’s stock, is socialism. To have the gov't tell privately held companies how much they can pay their CEO is socialism. The idea of the gov't taking private property from an American (wealth tax) is socialism. The idea that someone has a right to a job is socialism. America is one of the only developed countries without a major socialist presence. There are several reasons for that. I'll give you the big two. One is that our life here is great. Americans are very comfortable relative to the rest of the world. Two is our Constitution. That stands in the way of many socialist ideas. So given this, it makes sense for Republicans to throw the term out often in politics. It's a political winner for them. So, what is Trump using government revenues to give handouts to farmers? Socialism? His trade agreements in this case has hurt the farmer in a way, but here is the thing, being a farmer is very physical, hard work. Most millennials do not want to work that hard because they are used to handouts, they are lazy and self-entitled, the reason for all the socialist attitudes from the democrats (professors teaching this crap in college influencing these lazy little bastards they don't have to work hard if you just force the upper class to give them their money instead). You start making reform that hurts the farmers a bit, and you don't subsidize them, you will stop having so many farmers, and the food supply will dwindle in a growing nation. That spells disaster no matter how you cut it in America. If anyone should be helped out, it should be the farmers.
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on Dec 19, 2019 13:06:14 GMT -5
Adam Schiff crushed it yesterday. Take notes republicans, that's what a true American patriot looks like. bwaha bwahaha..hahahahaahahahahahahahahaha Oh my gosh, The guy should be tried right next to Trump in the court of public opinion and see how tight that noose gets around his damn neck. Patriot my ass.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 19, 2019 14:08:33 GMT -5
So, what is Trump using government revenues to give handouts to farmers? Socialism? His trade agreements in this case has hurt the farmer in a way, but here is the thing, being a farmer is very physical, hard work. Most millennials do not want to work that hard because they are used to handouts, they are lazy and self-entitled, the reason for all the socialist attitudes from the democrats (professors teaching this crap in college influencing these lazy little bastards they don't have to work hard if you just force the upper class to give them their money instead). You start making reform that hurts the farmers a bit, and you don't subsidize them, you will stop having so many farmers, and the food supply will dwindle in a growing nation. That spells disaster no matter how you cut it in America. If anyone should be helped out, it should be the farmers. So, socialism is ok then?
|
|
|
Post by crashdavissports on Dec 19, 2019 14:58:25 GMT -5
His trade agreements in this case has hurt the farmer in a way, but here is the thing, being a farmer is very physical, hard work. Most millennials do not want to work that hard because they are used to handouts, they are lazy and self-entitled, the reason for all the socialist attitudes from the democrats (professors teaching this crap in college influencing these lazy little bastards they don't have to work hard if you just force the upper class to give them their money instead). You start making reform that hurts the farmers a bit, and you don't subsidize them, you will stop having so many farmers, and the food supply will dwindle in a growing nation. That spells disaster no matter how you cut it in America. If anyone should be helped out, it should be the farmers. So, socialism is ok then? That is not socialism, that is Trump helping keep America flush with food so these lazy pieces of Fecal Matter can collect their food stamps and live the life of Riley that the Democrats gave to them back in the 50's.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 19, 2019 16:15:32 GMT -5
So, socialism is ok then? That is not socialism, that is Trump helping keep America flush with food so these lazy pieces of Fecal Matter can collect their food stamps and live the life of Riley that the Democrats gave to them back in the 50's. How is it not? It's taking tax revenue in the form of tariffs from one group of people then redistributing it to a different, government-selected group to interfere with the working of the free market and prop up said group. I guess if Republicans do it, it's not socialism?
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Dec 19, 2019 20:17:52 GMT -5
That is not socialism, that is Trump helping keep America flush with food so these lazy pieces of Fecal Matter can collect their food stamps and live the life of Riley that the Democrats gave to them back in the 50's. How is it not? It's taking tax revenue in the form of tariffs from one group of people then redistributing it to a different, government-selected group to interfere with the working of the free market and prop up said group. I guess if Republicans do it, it's not socialism? Socialism is a lot more than that. I itemized many different examples earlier and this sort of thing didn't make my short list. That's just a gov't handout and unfortunately our gov't has been doing that since the Great Depression. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it's not but it doesn't make a country socialist. In fact socialist countries like the USSR, Venezuela and East Germany were never known for their handouts to farmers
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 20, 2019 0:54:45 GMT -5
How is it not? It's taking tax revenue in the form of tariffs from one group of people then redistributing it to a different, government-selected group to interfere with the working of the free market and prop up said group. I guess if Republicans do it, it's not socialism? Socialism is a lot more than that. I itemized many different examples earlier and this sort of thing didn't make my short list. That's just a gov't handout and unfortunately our gov't has been doing that since the Great Depression. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it's not but it doesn't make a country socialist. In fact socialist countries like the USSR, Venezuela and East Germany were never known for their handouts to farmers Great, then if that doesn't qualify as "socialism," then the vast majority of what the Democratic candidates are proposing isn't socialism either. It's just a scare word.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 20, 2019 0:58:13 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/07/23/selective-socialism-donald-trump-farmers-yes-poor-families-no/The selective socialism of Donald Trump: Farmers, yes. Poor families, no.By Philip Bump July 23, 2019 at 6:30 a.m. PDT The popular understanding of what “socialism” entails isn’t quite right. We tend to use the expression interchangeably with “social programs,” government investments in aid to the American public. In other contexts, it’s used as a blanket pejorative. The Democrats want socialism, President Trump will say, part of his effort to tap into his base’s latent Cold War worries. Trump’s party has consistently framed itself in opposition to big government spending, an idea that bleeds over into this nebulous socialismness, particularly as elections near. Democrats want to tax and spend; Republicans believe in the free market. That sort of thing. Cut spending, cut taxes, everyone wins. While Trump doesn’t always hew to this line of rhetoric from his party, he does at times. As with his administration’s plan to change eligibility requirements for food stamps, reported on Tuesday. In most states, people who are eligible for assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program are also then eligible for food stamps (technically, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program). By eliminating that automatic registration and requiring a separate application for food stamps, the government figures that it can eliminate more than 3 million people from the ranks of those receiving the aid. Net savings? According to Reuters: $2.5 billion annually, or as much as $15 billion over the long term. To put that into perspective, the tax cuts signed into law by Trump in December 2017 contributed to a net decrease in corporate tax receipts of more than $90 billion by the end of fiscal year 2018. We can put it into perspective in another way, too, thanks to a tweet from Trump on Tuesday morning. Farmers, Trump says, are doing great again after seeing their fortunes fall for 15 years. Why? Well, thanks in part to something he calls “replacement money.” This is a euphemism for one of the most direct government handouts in recent memory. After Trump initiated a trade war with China by imposing tariffs on imports, the Chinese retaliated by adding tariffs of their own, targeting American agricultural products. Sales of crops such as soybeans plunged, putting farmers at direct economic risk. In order to offset that, the administration introduced a subsidy program that will pay farmers to keep them in business. Trump claimed at one point that this subsidy would come from the tariffs being paid by China on imported products but, as you likely know, those tariffs are also being paid largely by American consumers. The subsidy program’s cost? $16 billion. The amount of increased costs borne by Americans through June of this year? That’s estimated at more than $22 billion. So Trump is, in essence, taxing American consumers to pay $16 billion to farmers. The rationale for this is simple, as is the rationale for Trump bragging about handing that money over to farmers: 2020. Farmers almost necessarily live in more rural areas, places that are a stronghold of Trump’s support. Trump is reminding farmers and those who live near farmers that he’s delivering for them, no matter how at odds with his party’s past rhetoric. You’ve probably already made this comparison in your head, but let’s do so explicitly. Trump’s administration wants to change food-stamp eligibility rules in order to save $15 billion over the long run and reduce food aid to 3.1 million people. At the same time, he celebrates spending $16 billion over the short run to bolster 3.4 million American farmers — who were hurting in part because of the tariffs that he himself imposed. All of this is occurring in the shadow of the broad tax cuts he signed in 2017 that have contributed to what the White House itself expects to be a $1 trillion deficit this fiscal year. Trump’s use of federal funds to send political messages is pretty explicit here. Poor people shouldn’t be poor in this economy and don’t need food stamps. Farmers do need assistance (thanks to Trump), and that assistance is worth bragging about. If you’re curious, 39 percent of households receiving food stamps in 2016 were run by someone who is white. Well over 90 percent of farmers are white. Again, this isn’t really socialism, as such. But, then, neither are many of the proposals from Democrats that Trump regularly disparages. While he’s more receptive to using government money to bolster his political base than many in his party, he still likes to use the word “socialism” as a cudgel. It seems safe to say, though, that he won’t apply that word to his support for farmers.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 20, 2019 1:01:33 GMT -5
www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/trump-is-the-true-socialist/2019/07/25/4f45410c-af1a-11e9-8e77-03b30bc29f64_story.htmlTrump is the true socialistBy Catherine Rampell Columnist July 25, 2019 at 3:29 p.m. PDT Republicans are right. The scourge of socialism is already upon us. They’re just wrong about which party is to blame. Technically, “socialism” refers to a system in which the government controls the means of production. In popular parlance, however, “socialist” has instead become a more generic right-wing slur. To the extent the descriptor signals any substance whatsoever, it’s about government handouts, picking winners and losers, redistribution of wealth, or something to that effect. And yes, some Democrats have proposed some pie-in-the-sky ideas (such as free college) that meet these vague Big Government principles. Yet, if you look at who has successfully implemented policies that fit such pseudo-socialist criteria in recent years, it’s Republicans. Not that you’d know it from their rhetoric. “Our freedoms are under attack because the radical left will stop at nothing until socialism has spread from coast to coast,” Sen. Joni Ernst (R-Iowa) proclaimed last month when she kicked off her reelection campaign. “Let me be clear: Socialism has no place in the Hawkeye State or America, and I will stop at nothing to protect our Iowa values.” Maybe Ernst was being painfully un-self-aware here. Or maybe she thinks her voters are. Either way, for decades, “Iowa values” have explicitly included demands for big fat federal government subsidies for corn ethanol — among other payouts and market-distorting government interventions that Republicans might in other contexts smear as “socialist.” Agricultural subsidies have been blessed and perpetuated by politicians from both parties. But lately, a Republican president, with the support of Republican lawmakers, is in the midst of a broader “socialist” endeavor to bail out the farm industry. After President Trump picked trade wars with nearly every major U.S. trading partner — friend and foe alike — U.S. exports of soybeans, pork and other agricultural products dried up. The president subsequently decided to cover up one foolish economic policy with another, and another. He launched not one but two rounds of massive farmer bailouts, together totaling tens of billions of dollars. Yet Republican politicians have portrayed neither of these taxpayer-funded handouts as “socialist.” Nor do Republicans cry “socialism” when the treasury secretary lectures U.S. retailers and manufacturers about how and where they should reallocate their supply chains; nor when the president himself lectures firms about what products to stock; nor when the administration tries to get other countries to engage in more centralized economic planning — by, for example, demanding that European political leaders commit private companies to buy more U.S. crops and liquefied natural gas regardless of price, quality or market needs. You would be hard-pressed to find better recent examples of the U.S. government trying to exert influence, if not outright control, over the means of production, both domestically and abroad. When not disrupting previously functional industries, Republicans have also been busy propping up failing ones. Consider the case of coal. Technological change (i.e., fracking) has made the U.S. coal industry less competitive; at least six major U.S. coal producers have filed for bankruptcy in the past year, with the most recent filing last week. But rather than letting markets run their course, Republicans at both the federal and state levels are concocting complicated handouts. Trump, who rants on Twitter about how Democrats want to turn us into a “Socialist or Communist Country,” has repeatedly attempted Soviet-style bailouts of failing coal plants. On Tuesday, Ohio, a state under unified Republican control, decided to copy him, with a new law that adds taxpayer-funded subsidies for coal-fired and nuclear power plants. What of that Republican fearmongering about Democratic wealth distribution? It’s worth remembering that wealth can be redistributed down or up. Lately, the direction of that redistribution, under Republican stewardship, has been decidedly upward — in the form of both top-heavy tax cuts and the shredding of the safety net. As my Post colleague Philip Bump pointed out, the administration’s latest attempts to gut the food-stamp program proves that while Trump’s brand of socialism may extend to farmers, it’s still not available for the working poor. What remains interesting is how Republicans manage to reconcile their anti-socialist words with their Big Government actions. Polling last fall from YouGov, for instance, found that Republicans overwhelmingly supported Trump’s trade-war-driven farmer bailout, despite an avowed antipathy for “socialism.” A separate YouGov poll conducted this week asked respondents whether they considered various policies to be examples of socialism, such as free college tuition (according to Republicans: yes!), or Social Security and government medical care for veterans (both no, somehow). Medicare for the elderly is decidedly not socialist, but something approximating Medicare for everyone definitely is. So maybe the problem isn’t hypocrisy, exactly. It’s that the word “socialist,” to Republicans at least, has evolved to mean anything the other side is for.
|
|
|
Post by Millennial on Dec 20, 2019 10:18:07 GMT -5
Socialism is a lot more than that. I itemized many different examples earlier and this sort of thing didn't make my short list. That's just a gov't handout and unfortunately our gov't has been doing that since the Great Depression. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it's not but it doesn't make a country socialist. In fact socialist countries like the USSR, Venezuela and East Germany were never known for their handouts to farmers Great, then if that doesn't qualify as "socialism," then the vast majority of what the Democratic candidates are proposing isn't socialism either. It's just a scare word. This^
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Dec 20, 2019 11:05:43 GMT -5
Socialism is a lot more than that. I itemized many different examples earlier and this sort of thing didn't make my short list. That's just a gov't handout and unfortunately our gov't has been doing that since the Great Depression. Sometimes it's necessary. Sometimes it's not but it doesn't make a country socialist. In fact socialist countries like the USSR, Venezuela and East Germany were never known for their handouts to farmers Great, then if that doesn't qualify as "socialism," then the vast majority of what the Democratic candidates are proposing isn't socialism either. It's just a scare word. One candidate in particular has self identified as a Socialist. Who am I to argue with him? His goals are socialistic. He's a Socialist and a major player in the Dem field. As for Elizabeth Warren, I don't really care about her 'cause she ain't gettin' the nomination (although I wish she would) because she's just too far left. As to whether she's a socialist, that's not as clear cut but her M4A plan is socialistic. She wants to ban all private insurance. That's socialism.
|
|
searay
Bid McPhee
Posts: 1,122
|
Post by searay on Dec 20, 2019 11:11:58 GMT -5
That whole WaPost editorial is worthless due to its false premise. Gov't handouts are far left policy but they don't define socialism. Concepts like gov't takeover of private businesses and a goal to rid the country of all billionaires is socialism. With that definition in mind, let's see her write an article accusing Trump of being a socialist. until that happens, this is nothing but noise.
Definition of Socialism:
Where this concept of corn subsidies equating to socialism ever got started, I do not know
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 20, 2019 11:27:19 GMT -5
That whole WaPost editorial is worthless due to its false premise. Gov't handouts are far left policy but they don't define socialism. Concepts like gov't takeover of private businesses and a goal to rid the country of all billionaires is socialism. With that definition in mind, let's see her write an article accusing Trump of being a socialist. until that happens, this is nothing but noise. Definition of Socialism: Where this concept of corn subsidies equating to socialism ever got started, I do not know Simple. It got started by Republicans muddying the definition of socialism and slapping the "socialism" label on anything and everything Democratic to scare and fire up the Republican base. At this point, there is no clear, accepted definition of socialism.
|
|
|
Post by Millennial on Dec 20, 2019 11:30:37 GMT -5
So, what is Trump using government revenues to give handouts to farmers? Socialism? His trade agreements in this case has hurt the farmer in a way, but here is the thing, being a farmer is very physical, hard work. Most millennials do not want to work that hard because they are used to handouts, they are lazy and self-entitled, the reason for all the socialist attitudes from the democrats (professors teaching this crap in college influencing these lazy little bastards they don't have to work hard if you just force the upper class to give them their money instead). You start making reform that hurts the farmers a bit, and you don't subsidize them, you will stop having so many farmers, and the food supply will dwindle in a growing nation. That spells disaster no matter how you cut it in America. If anyone should be helped out, it should be the farmers. itep.org/60-fortune-500-companies-avoided-all-federal-income-tax-in-2018-under-new-tax-law/Or maybe the millennial generation understands why 60 fortune 500 companies paying 0 in federal income tax is another reason why the wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country is the highest it's been since the great depression. Or maybe we tend acknowledge the fact that since the '08 financial crisis(that the boomers caused), college tuition has doubled in cost and graduating with a 4 year degree now also means $40,000-80,000 of debt.. While 22 countries offer free college tuition. Crippling amounts of debt, that our generation faces if we want to continue our education. Millennials also may feel the fact that the US healthcare industry is profiting off our medical needs - when 32 other countries offer universal healthcare - is wrong. In 1996 per capita spending on prescription drugs was relatively equal in high income countries. Today the average US citizen spends 30-190% more on the same prescription drugs than the other high income countries. But we would only need .05% ($3 Billion) of the annual military budget; which is closing in on 700 billion$/yr (higher than next 9 countries COMBINED) to provide higher education and universal healthcare to every citizen in the USA. And to top it off, we incarcerate the highest % of our own people here in the 'Land of the Free'. Our government helps fund PRIVATELY owned prisons ONLY if they're at 90%+ capacity rates.. Where inmate labor gets sold to conglomerates like IBM, Apple, Dell, Walmart. And the people who've invested in these prisons, profit off their existence. So while older generations may want to believe the whole world still looks up to the US, it simply isn't true. We're behind the 8-ball when it comes to prison-reform, education, and healthcare. The USA is not even ranked in the top 15 in terms of quality of living standards (17th). Ultimately, I don't believe millennials are used to handouts. We're just tired of living in the world that the generations before us ushered in.
|
|
|
Post by Lark11 on Dec 20, 2019 12:48:23 GMT -5
His trade agreements in this case has hurt the farmer in a way, but here is the thing, being a farmer is very physical, hard work. Most millennials do not want to work that hard because they are used to handouts, they are lazy and self-entitled, the reason for all the socialist attitudes from the democrats (professors teaching this crap in college influencing these lazy little bastards they don't have to work hard if you just force the upper class to give them their money instead). You start making reform that hurts the farmers a bit, and you don't subsidize them, you will stop having so many farmers, and the food supply will dwindle in a growing nation. That spells disaster no matter how you cut it in America. If anyone should be helped out, it should be the farmers. itep.org/60-fortune-500-companies-avoided-all-federal-income-tax-in-2018-under-new-tax-law/Or maybe the millennial generation understands why 60 fortune 500 companies paying 0 in federal income tax is another reason why the wealth gap between the top 1% and the rest of the country is the highest it's been since the great depression. Or maybe we tend acknowledge the fact that since the '08 financial crisis(that the boomers caused), college tuition has doubled in cost and graduating with a 4 year degree now also means $40,000-80,000 of debt.. While 22 countries offer free college tuition. Crippling amounts of debt, that our generation faces if we want to continue our education. Millennials also may feel the fact that the US healthcare industry is profiting off our medical needs - when 32 other countries offer universal healthcare - is wrong. In 1996 per capita spending on prescription drugs was relatively equal in high income countries. Today the average US citizen spends 30-190% more on the same prescription drugs than the other high income countries. But we would only need .05% ($3 Billion) of the annual military budget; which is closing in on 700 billion$/yr (higher than next 9 countries COMBINED) to provide higher education and universal healthcare to every citizen in the USA. And to top it off, we incarcerate the highest % of our own people here in the 'Land of the Free'. Our government helps fund PRIVATELY owned prisons ONLY if they're at 90%+ capacity rates.. Where inmate labor gets sold to conglomerates like IBM, Apple, Dell, Walmart. And the people who've invested in these prisons, profit off their existence. So while older generations may want to believe the whole world still looks up to the US, it simply isn't true. We're behind the 8-ball when it comes to prison-reform, education, and healthcare. The USA is not even ranked in the top 15 in terms of quality of living standards (17th). Ultimately, I don't believe millennials are used to handouts. We're just tired of living in the world that the generations before us ushered in. Totally understandable. The younger generation is looking at a world that is being massively stressed by global warming and climate change and a country where the cost of living has exploded (housing, healthcare, education, etc.), wages are stuck and have been for decades, and more and more wealth is transferred up to the 1%. Why would they buy into that system? It's not working for them; it's not working for most people. The captains of industry have spent decades maximizing shareholder wealth and corporate profits. Some are waking up to the reality that everyone else has been left behind, which is both inequitable and dangerous. When faced with this environment, the current administration's plan is to double down on the existing capitalistic environment. A small tax break as a means of addressing serious inequality, less regulation (aka more costs of pollution imposed on society rather than internalized by the company) on business, and continued strip mining of the world's resources for profits (global warming? Dying oceans? Who cares!) There are some very real problems that require new solutions. Trying to turn back the clock to 1950 isn't going to bring about the needed change.
|
|