57% of Democrats View Socialism Positively

Their problems started before he died. They started when the oil prices plunged and Venezuela lost their main source of income. That's what happened to most of the other leftist governments in Latin America as well.

 

Oh, I absolutely agree that they overinvested in the oil sector. That said the collapse in oil prices was due to a failed attempt by SA to kill Canadian tar sands and American fracking rather than a natural downturn. Had that not happened and Chavez not dead, Venezuela's program of using its resources rather than burdensome taxes to finance its welfare state would have continued to function as well as it had been. Had an honest man replaced Chavez, the response to falling oil prices would have been to diversify the government's investment portfolio and things would have carried on with possible reductions in benefits. Instead what oil revenue that remained was pocketed and when the state oil company tried to manage the situation, management got fired. It's the leadership, not the system.

 

Insurance companies are businesses, and businesses are operated for profit. People buy insurance because they perceive it to cost them less in the long run. Remove the profit motive and you have a charity. Those who purchase insurance should get what they are paying for, while those who do not or can not should get what others are 'willing' to pay for. No one, including government, should force another/others to pay for others needs/wants.

This is how democracy leads to eventual collapse. If 51% of the people want something for free, the government claims a legal right to take from others to provide it.

I'm sure there are a mix of people with differing ideologies living most everywhere. I doubt seriously that everyone's concerns can ever be addressed to their satisfaction by a central government, and perhaps only somewhat better at a local level of government.

I didn't bring up a Constitutional convention, nor anything to do with the Supreme Court. We were only talking about Medicaid, and making it fully a State function with no Federal funding.

 

No, removing the profit margin from health care and you have the patient paying the doctor for his/her service, without a middle-man raking profit from the deal. Thus lower health care costs. Only in America do we allow corporations to profit off health care, by simply providing payment. We spend more on health care than any other country, and have worse outcomes than many that pay much less.

Democracies collapse with loose fiscal practices, followed by socialism, followed by authoritarian regimes, followed by revolution, and the process begins again.

Why shouldn't the majority of voters get what they want in a representative republic? That's what having a vote is all about. The government's role is to protect the rights of the minority from being trampled by the majority. We don't have universal background checks on all gun purchases because of money in politics, not because it would trample the rights of the minority.

The whole point in representative government is to give voice to all. What we have now is the "shove it down their throats" style of government, where one party gets control of the legislative body and pushes through their agenda. That's what happened with the ACA and the tax cut, only from different partisan sides. It's bully tactics. What we lack is compromise and unity. Thus we keep swinging wildly on the political pendulum from left to right, and back again. We need those on the left and right to work with those in the middle, so everyone's voice is heard and the country's needs, as a whole, are addressed. When government is as dysfunctional as ours has become, it's no wonder people look for a different model.

 

Just how do you think Obamacare got pre-existing conditions covered? They did it through the individual mandate. When everyone was required to have health insurance, there was a huge pool of people, and that made covering pre-existing conditions possible. Removing the mandate changed the pool of the insured, and changed coverage for pre-existing conditions. The mandate remains in place through the end of 2018, but ends on January 1, 2019.

If pre-existing coverage wasn't repealed in the tax cut bill removing the mandate, why are Republican senators doing this…?

 

Sure, the government can always spend less. Where are you going to cut it? So far, neither Democrats or Republicans can find a place to cut spending.

Which assets do you want to sell and to whom would you sell them?

 

I have no problem with the patient paying the doctor for his/her services. No one was previously forced to buy insurance, and the ACA forces 'some' to buy insurance in order for government to provide coverage for others who pay nothing.
Sounds like a good argument against collectivist centralized government, and socialism.

Majority rule at local government level allows the minority freedom to escape from what they find unacceptable, and even at State level of government the minority retain some freedom, but when imposed at the Federal level the minority cannot escape what they find to be oppressive.

I don't see any better model of government than what was prescribed by our Constitution prior to 1913, speaking specifically of the 16th and 17th amendments and the Federal Reserve Act.

 

Everyone needs health care at some point, even those that can't pay for it.

If freedom was all that was necessary to rise from poverty, then we wouldn't have poverty in this country. Sometimes, if you want people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps, you have to provide them with boots.

Our system of government is the best, but it is not infallible. Our economic system is a good one, but it requires tempering with programs that take people into consideration, as something more than a cost to reduce as much as possible. However, when the government is not responsive to the voters and the economic system promotes amassing assets in the hands of very few, and limits opportunities to everyone else, people will look for alternatives. That's the entire premise of this thread.

It's quite evident to anyone looking at the situation with clear eyes. Our government has become less responsive to voters, but more responsive to donors, who "donate" to get laws enacted that skew our economic system to favor the wealthiest, over the majority. The voters will either replace the unresponsive government or our system will fall. That is what has happened throughout history.

 

About the only thing I can agree with in your post is what you call the "premise of this thread". I agree totally that free is much easier to sell than freedom.

 

Neither side gives a damn. I see Trump making moves toward cost controls like cancelling Korean War Exercises because they are expensive, while making it clear that if they are really necessary we will damn sure spend the money.

The Strategic Petroleum Reserve for one, was sized for conditions prior to the Canadian and US oil boom when we were dependent on oil that crossed oceans. Now, between Canadian, US, Mexican, and South American oil we have far more than we need and its all supplied by pipeline or through ocean water we can easily protect. It most certainly has annual upkeep costs and should be sold in crude rallies until we reduce our holdings to the size reserve we need for current and foreseeable conditions.

The Federal Government owns a ridiculously large amount of the land in the states of Colorado west that reached Statehood after the more easterly states, and while that may have made sense at one point, it's past ridiculous now.

The Department of the Interior controls 1/5th of all the land of the US and the vast majority of that is Colorado and West. The Government should put some of that up for auction, selling into property value increases, booking the revenue Federal Debt Reduction and the annual upkeep costs to deficit reduction.

Surplus Property:
Three problems with surplus federal property:

• It's often an attractive nuisance and a blight.
• State and local authorities cannot derive tax income from it.
• It has annual upkeep costs.

The Federal government owns this. Why?



We own this Courthouse, it has been vacant for 10 years because built a replacement building next door. Why have we paid to maintain it for 10 years rather than putting it up for auction?

According to the GAO, the federal government owns or leases 900,000 buildings and structures. A Congressional Research Service report estimates that we own 77,000 of them are vacant or underutilized properties, though the report cautions that nobody really knows for sure what the hell we even own!

That's a damn sure sign the Federal government owns too much.

 

As a Democrat, I don't like taxes any more than a Republican, but I feel better if I know my tax dollars are going toward making our society better in some way--possibly by helping those less fortunate financially to have their basic needs met, at least temporarily while they get on their feet. I want a strong military, but I feel spending as much on our military as the next nine strongest militaries in the world combined is going too far. I'd rather my tax dollars go into something more positive and humane than preparation for war. I also feel graduated income taxes are much more fair than sales taxes. I differ from Republicans there, for they always tend to favor sales taxes over income taxes. I think it's a misnomer that Democrats want more taxes. Democrats want government to be a positive tool to help society be more fair socially, and less divided financially than it is presently. If our attention stays focused strictly on taxes and nothing else, then most of what's important in keeping a society and a nation healthy is being ignored. We can do better.

 

That Is perhaps the best rebuttal I have ever read.

So on with the show.

I challenge your assertion you don't like taxes more than republicans since you engaged in a litany of tax and spend projects of your own.

Not a single word said by you sounds like tax reductions. Nor does it sound like spending reductions save for on the military.

Perusing the constitution points out that the duty of the Feds is defense. Should we scale back to the pre WW2 era amounts and risk a major attack? I too prefer we could, but I did not say we should.

I do not recall a word in the constitution to use the force of the Feds for charity. And I see no admission on your part we have a massive charity system run by the church. And they work daily to help and do not require the reams of paperwork the poor must fill out to get help. Those not getting help from the Feds seem unaware to me that the government does not simply help the poor. A church will feed/shelter you and not ask the sums of your assets nor their location. Government asks a lot more than that. They keep asking the poor, "are you yet working?" This to cut off the help.

I favor sales taxes for a number of excellent reasons.

As a tax collection device, it works far better than the Feds asking you if you will file returns. See, returns are called voluntary acts. Sales taxes are not voluntary. The merchant simply makes use of the computer system to note the tax and include it in the sum. Remarkably as this sound, even tax evaders end up paying those taxes and then and there. While delinquent income taxes are in the billions of dollars, not so with sales taxes. Sales tax deliqunces are much lower and in general due to business failure. Your criminal pays sales taxes. Though we do not expect criminals pay income taxes.

I see government as a group that is paid to govern. Govern does not mean run my life. It does not mean for the congress to sit like perched vultures spying our incomes and making laws to take our funds. They are relentless stalkers of our funds yet not relentless seeking the poor to house and help them. It takes a long time and much effort by those not in government just to get help to the poor as you wish to. But talk to a church and that help is virtually instant. But most Democrats truly resent church. GW Bush made use of church to help the poor. But Democrats raised clenched fists and screamed at him how dare he do that.

Again your cordiality is appreciated.

 

The psychological and emotional toll when a person constantly lies to sell socialist "snake oil" is a deeply empty core, low self esteem, and paranoia that at any minute they will get busted. The group-thinking socialists buying that snake oil are the most ignorant and uneducated among us. They aren't capable of seeing where the confluence of contempt for life, contempt for religion, contempt for the constitution protecting them, contempt for people who have different opinions, contempt for success and contempt for the "good life" is actually leading them. They will be content to live out their lives in a converted shipping crate on universal income just to prove loyalty to socialism.

Meanwhile, the socialist leaders will be like all dictators around the world, including N.Korea: living an incredibly lavish life at the expense of "the people". That will not bring them contentment. It will enlarge the black hole inside them, and make them angry, cruel people.

 

What a silly, foolish, ignorant statement. Both Stalin and Mao were authoritarian gebonees, genocidal maiacs and hardly democratic.

 

Both Mao and Stalin used violence to silence dissent, just like Antifa, what's your point?

 

I know damn well that Stalin used violence after all thevRussians killed 6-8 million of my parent's countrymen, and Russians- Stalin sent both of my grandfathers to Siberia. Yet what does that have to do with ANTIFA ??

 

Likely the leftiness and violence factors.

 

As hard as you try, you cannot educate those who are incapable or unwilling to being educated.

 

The Mexican drug cartels are violent why not try to equate them also.
The ANTIFA deal has nothing to do with the topic.

 

Apparently they learned from the best and most ruthless dirtbags on the planet, ie Stalin and friends...

 

ANTIFA are a gang of gangs mire on line with anarchistic terrorists. Matching ANTIFA with the genocidal monster Stalin does a duservicevtonthe memkrynof the tens of millions of Stalin's victims.

 

Give Antifa some time and some power, I'm sure they'll do whatever they can to follow their chosen path...

 

It's hard to say how many people Stalin actually killed, especially if you count Ukraine famine in 1932-33 that killed 6-7 million people alone. Soviet records, even after the wall came down, are suspect and incomplete at best. I have seen estimates as high as 65m and as low as 3m. I suspect somewhere between 15-20 million.

The point being, ANTIFA is literally using the same tactics as Stalin and other murderist socialist/communist/dictators. If ANTIFA ever came to power in America, it would like something out of the early Stalin regime.

They are and act opposite of everything they say they stand for. Just like Stalin.

 

ANTIFA is a loose confederation of supposedly anti facist groups. They are not organized in any way that even resembles criminal drug gangs. They are not a group that can take over a government. Should they be WATCHED Yes.

 

If ANTIFA cabal of gangs are as organized as you believe they would be more like the Bolsheviks/Mensheviks Leninists before Stalin took over. The reason I say that is because they are or appear to be nebulous at this time and not have the one key strong leader. If they do evolve into an organized group then they could become dangerous.