https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/statu...94016?s=09

Bernie supports breadlines?

What a forkin maroon.

(02-20-2019 12:07 AM)solohawks Wrote:  https://twitter.com/rising_serpent/statu...94016?s=09

Bernie supports breadlines?

Sure he does.

It won't be him standing in those lines with the unwashed masses, that 's reserved for "the people".

Socialism is for the people, NOT the Socialist - Andrew Wilkow

Weird, but his characterization, "the rich get the food and the poor starve," is exactly how it works in those places that have bread lines. That's why they have bread lines, because the privileged class took all the bread first.

I mentioned in another thread, but will repeat here. At the shipyard area in Gdansk, Poland, there is a memorial to the shipyard workers whose strike under Lech Walesa started the uprising that ultimately overthrew the communists, and a museum commemorating the events. For me it was incredibly moving. We had a guided tour of the museum. At one point, there is a large photo of hundreds of people in line, including many small children, in obviously very wintry conditions (and northern Poland can obviously get very wintry). Our guide explained that this was people queueing up for meat in the communist days. Asked why there were so many small children bundled up against obviously freezing conditions, she said that the way it worked, you got so much meat per person, so people dragged even small children along to get more meat, and many of the children would get very sick from the exposure. I'd like to see Bernie try to convince those people that it is a good thing.

"Let them have cake".

If memory serves me correctly, the only cases where socialism (in some quasi-form?) worked decently well was during the cold war when the U.S. rebuilt western Europe post WW2. I thought that part of the Marshall Plan - out of necessity - was to rebuild European industry and have the governments oversee these assets for awhile and then privatize at a future date. The privatization of these assets didn't happen until sometime in the 80s and even the early 90s for some countries. Cases like Cuba, China, USSR and the like all yielded the same results: wealth was concentrated into the hands of a few (the elite), and some of that wealth was trickled down to the rest of the people. Basically...feudalism.

Safety nets do not equal socialism. Don't remember economics too well, do you?

(02-20-2019 08:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys...


Enough with the bs. What is Social Security? It's not capitalism and it's not communism. It's socialism. You knuckleheads who say we will never be a socialist country. We have been since the 30's and we are better for it. You guys need a reality slap upside the head. And before any knucklehead screeches "ponzi scheme", if the govt. didn't raid the trust fund it would be very healthy.

Get your life's together......... stop the insanity.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/s...seline.pdf

"A decade from now, rising entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 99 percent of tax revenues – forcing virtually the entire discretionary spending budget to be financed on the nation’s credit card. "

If the government had fiscal responsibility the country wouldn't be heading over the cliff financially. Social Security, while well intentioned, is a perfect example of why you do not let the government have control of your well being.

(02-20-2019 08:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:48 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys...


Enough with the bs. What is Social Security? It's not capitalism and it's not communism. It's socialism. You knuckleheads who say we will never be a socialist country. We have been since the 30's and we are better for it. You guys need a reality slap upside the head. And before any knucklehead screeches "ponzi scheme", if the govt. didn't raid the trust fund it would be very healthy.

Get your life's together......... stop the insanity.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/s...seline.pdf

"A decade from now, rising entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 99 percent of tax revenues – forcing virtually the entire discretionary spending budget to be financed on the nation’s credit card. "

If the government had fiscal responsibility the country wouldn't be heading over the cliff financially. Social Security, while well intentioned, is a perfect example of why you do not let the government have control of your well being.

So keep favoring taxes being cut short bus......... The problem is cut tax and spend Republicans. Give me a tax and spend Democrat anyday and twice on Sundays. They both spend but only one side wants to actually pay the bill. You guys are dine and dashers at heart......

I wouldn't expect any better from you. You have proven repeatedly you have no sense when it comes to economics but that's common for liberals.
Why do you hate people being able to decide for themselves how to spend their money and best provide for retirement? The government has shown it has no fiscal responsibility yet you want them to control more money?

(02-20-2019 08:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  Safety nets do not equal socialism. Don't remember economics too well, do you?

Safety nets are socialism lite bright. The very definition of it.........

Safety "nets" aren't the problem. It's when those nets become lifestyles.

Those nets were designed to be a TEMPORARY means until people were able to get back on their feet. They were NEVER meant to for people who use their entire lives.

How many people do we have in this country where they have GENERATIONS of family members who've always been on welfare?

(02-20-2019 08:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  Safety nets do not equal socialism. Don't remember economics too well, do you?

Safety nets are socialism lite bright. The very definition of it.........

No, they are not. Socialism encompasses state ownership of the means of production and/or massive "redistribution" of income and wealth. Safety nets are neither of those. I favor capitalism with a safety net. I do not favor socialism.

It's funny how the left's position on this has changed. 40-50 years ago, when some proposed welfare program was attacked as being socialism, the left responded, "No, it's not socialism. It's a safety net." Now, even police and fire departments and roads and bridges are described as socialism. There has been a distinct shift from denying socialism to sanitizing it by painting every time the government spends money as socialism.

Western European "socialist democracies" are not socialist. They are capitalist with a safety net. And they don't "redistribute" from the "rich" to pay for that safety net. They tax the crap out of everybody. The poor and middle classes carry a much bigger portion of the tax burden than do the "rich." Their income tax structures are much less "progressive." Yes Sweden has a top rate of 60%. But starting at about US$50,000, Swedes pay 55%, and they hit the top rate at about US$75,000. Plus they have a consumption tax which is inherently "regressive." And yet they still get a far more equal dispersion of wealth and income than we do. The reason? Statistically, a safety net has far more impact on equality than do confiscatory taxes on the "rich."

Interestingly, it was not too long ago that Europe had confiscatory taxes on the "rich." They abandoned them. Why? Three reasons:
1) The "rich" started moving, or at least moving their money, overseas, and that stifled their economies.
2) They saw the impacts of the JFK/LBJ and Reagan tax cuts on sustained economic growth.
3) They figured out the power of consumption taxes.

Are we going to have to repeat their mistake, or can we learn from it? I hope the latter but I fear the former.

Class warfare makes good politics, unfortunately. It also makes bad policy. I hope we don't have to learn the hard way, but I'm afraid we may have to.

(02-20-2019 09:02 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  Safety nets do not equal socialism. Don't remember economics too well, do you?

Safety nets are socialism lite bright. The very definition of it.........

Safety "nets" aren't the problem. It's when those nets become lifestyles.

Those nets were designed to be a TEMPORARY means until people were able to get back on their feet. They were NEVER meant to for people who use their entire lives.

How many people do we have in this country where they have GENERATIONS of family members who've always been on welfare?

No......

Social Security was not "meant" to be temporary...... It's like you guys come out of the wood work from the half witted tree........


Listen it would be a FULL TIME job correcting the falsehoods and misperceptions of reality on here and I honestly don't have the time.

Quit conflating issues. We have had welfare reform. Try to find an able bodied man on welfare. It's a unicorn We have Women with dependent children. So do you want them to starve out the kids? This from the "pro life" crowd. You all need to get your messaging straight.......

(02-20-2019 08:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:48 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys...


Enough with the bs. What is Social Security? It's not capitalism and it's not communism. It's socialism. You knuckleheads who say we will never be a socialist country. We have been since the 30's and we are better for it. You guys need a reality slap upside the head. And before any knucklehead screeches "ponzi scheme", if the govt. didn't raid the trust fund it would be very healthy.

Get your life's together......... stop the insanity.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/s...seline.pdf

"A decade from now, rising entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 99 percent of tax revenues – forcing virtually the entire discretionary spending budget to be financed on the nation’s credit card. "

If the government had fiscal responsibility the country wouldn't be heading over the cliff financially. Social Security, while well intentioned, is a perfect example of why you do not let the government have control of your well being.

So keep favoring taxes being cut short bus......... The problem is cut tax and spend Republicans. Give me a tax and spend Democrat anyday and twice on Sundays. They both spend but only one side wants to actually pay the bill. You guys are dine and dashers at heart......

LOL.

You believe what you're shoveling?

Which side is it that "wants to actually pay the bill"? Sure isn't the side that elected Obama who added $10 trillion to the debt.

Both sides are to blame, but if we're going to pick sides, I'll pick the side that lets me keep more of what I've EARNED. The alternative is the side that takes it upon themselves to deem what they ALLOW me to keep and the rest gets redistributed.

Medicare and Social Security by the definition of socialism is socialism...............

Enough is enough............ My goodness you guys. Stop the insanity.

(02-20-2019 09:16 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:52 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:48 AM)bearcat65 Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys...


Enough with the bs. What is Social Security? It's not capitalism and it's not communism. It's socialism. You knuckleheads who say we will never be a socialist country. We have been since the 30's and we are better for it. You guys need a reality slap upside the head. And before any knucklehead screeches "ponzi scheme", if the govt. didn't raid the trust fund it would be very healthy.

Get your life's together......... stop the insanity.

https://media4.manhattan-institute.org/s...seline.pdf

"A decade from now, rising entitlement spending and interest on the national debt will consume 99 percent of tax revenues – forcing virtually the entire discretionary spending budget to be financed on the nation’s credit card. "

If the government had fiscal responsibility the country wouldn't be heading over the cliff financially. Social Security, while well intentioned, is a perfect example of why you do not let the government have control of your well being.

So keep favoring taxes being cut short bus......... The problem is cut tax and spend Republicans. Give me a tax and spend Democrat anyday and twice on Sundays. They both spend but only one side wants to actually pay the bill. You guys are dine and dashers at heart......

LOL.

You believe what you're shoveling?

Which side is it that "wants to actually pay the bill"? Sure isn't the side that elected Obama who added $10 trillion to the debt.

Both sides are to blame, but if we're going to pick sides, I'll pick the side that lets me keep more of what I've EARNED. The alternative is the side that takes it upon themselves to deem what they ALLOW me to keep and the rest gets redistributed.

because you are a dash and diner freeloader. Call a spade a spade. You don't care about burdening the next generation because it's your side doing it.

(02-20-2019 09:16 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Medicare and Social Security by the definition of socialism is socialism...............

"Medicare and Social Security ... is"? Not an English teacher, right?

And by exactly what definition?

(02-20-2019 09:11 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 09:02 AM)BadgerMJ Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:50 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  

(02-20-2019 08:46 AM)bullet Wrote:  Safety nets do not equal socialism. Don't remember economics too well, do you?

Safety nets are socialism lite bright. The very definition of it.........

Safety "nets" aren't the problem. It's when those nets become lifestyles.

Those nets were designed to be a TEMPORARY means until people were able to get back on their feet. They were NEVER meant to for people who use their entire lives.

How many people do we have in this country where they have GENERATIONS of family members who've always been on welfare?

No......

Social Security was not "meant" to be temporary...... It's like you guys come out of the wood work from the half witted tree........


Listen it would be a FULL TIME job correcting the falsehoods and misperceptions of reality on here and I honestly don't have the time.

Quit conflating issues. We have had welfare reform. Try to find an able bodied man on welfare. It's a unicorn We have Women with dependent children. So do you want them to starve out the kids? This from the "pro life" crowd. You all need to get your messaging straight.......

By it's very definition, social security IS TEMPORARY, hence the reason you get it at the END OF YOUR LIFE.

When the scheme was devised, life expectancy was only in the early 60's. Pretty convenient to set the retirement age ABOVE that when most people died. The system was NEVER intended to pay people for more than a few years, especially now that people are routinely living into their 80's. The system was never designed to have people who never paid in to collect. The system was never designed to provide "disability", especially with today's standards of what's "disabled".

Welfare reform didn't work. You can't seriously tell me that the record number on Medicaid are all "women & children"...

Child Please.

As for those women, MAYBE someone should give them an economics lesson. Spending $5 on a box of condoms = CHEAPER THAN A KID!

Then again, when the government will simply write you a check for having one courtesy of the TAXPAYER, why not?

(02-20-2019 08:37 AM)Machiavelli Wrote:  Guys...


Enough with the bs. What is Social Security? It's not capitalism and it's not communism. It's socialism. You knuckleheads who say we will never be a socialist country. We have been since the 30's and we are better for it. You guys need a reality slap upside the head. And before any knucklehead screeches "ponzi scheme", if the govt. didn't raid the trust fund it would be very healthy.

Get your life's together......... stop the insanity.

It would be healthy for the govt accountants but not for the individual

Between myself and my employer I have contributed over 6 figures to SS since I started working at 16.

If I die my wife gets between $200 and $300

Miriam Webster......

and you know exactly what I teach and I'm DAMN good at that too.................................

Just got the highest evaluation possible on student growth and was in the top 1% of teachers in the state of Ohio on that Student Growth Rate. It is what it is. I've shared the test scores with you before and I'd be happy to share them again.

65% of my students last year scored at the advance or accelerated level........ I had one kid who didn't pass and she passed it in the fall on the retake. 100% passage rate. This teacher gets results.