Socialism is like water. If you have none, you have a miserable and probably short life. If you have too much, you have a miserable and probably short life. And if it's polluted, you have a miserable and probably short life.
But inequality is going down. That's the only thing that counts to people like Jhhnn. Who cares if the people are worse off so long as the rich are getting screwed over worse, amirite? Making sure the rich pay their "fair share" is worth missing a meal or two, or maybe all of them for days at a time.
Most left wingers in America want European style socialism. This is surely not a secret to you. We speak admiringly about their systems ad nauseum. I don't believe I have heard a left winger speak of Venezuela in positive tones. So given that we have openly told you what we want, why do you point at something that we don't want and say that is what we want? You sound like a presuppositionalist telling us that we KNOW that the Christian God exists.
Russia isn't communist but since it is on your list I should point out that Trump is Russiophile in Chief. Reagan started America's love affair with Iran, selling them weapons and even baking a birthday cake for the ayatollah. North Korea, I think we all agree on except that one poster.The left wingers sure do love them some Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Can't send money, uranium, and laugh at their jokes fast enough.
Heh, yes you are completely wrong about that.
First of all.. a family making $500... a year? Where exactly is this family? Calcutta living over an open sewer? Even trying at it, there's no such thing in the US.
And people think there's some grand difference between 500k and 500m in ways that honestly are mostly imaginary. Like if you make 500m, you eat 100 lunches per day, live in a different house every night and when you buy *anything* its 100 of the most expensive one instead of just the 1 you need.
Its this imaginary belief that's behind the silly notion that replacing income taxes with consumption taxes would work, because naturally this tiny fraction numerically of people will spend (and therefore match the consumption taxes) equivalent to litterally millions of normal people... simply because they can, not that it's based on anything practical.
In other words, there's a belief the millionaire buys the gold plated BLT every day for lunch (and 100 of them at that) rather than the same $15 lunch his 500k friend does.... just 'cuz.
Anyway no. 500k and 500m actually probably live close to the same lifestyle in reality... just the 500m person has more in the bank, more and bigger stuff, and likely employs a whole bunch of other people.
500 a year has nothing much in common with anyone in the US except homeless people.
Actually that's quite a bit unfair even for a lot of homeless. There are many who actually hustle their asses and make a few hundred bucks a DAY let alone a year. Of course, that's to shoot it into their veins and support horrendous addictions but still...
The left wingers sure do love them some Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Can't send money, uranium, and laugh at their jokes fast enough.
Heh, yes you are completely wrong about that.
First of all.. a family making $500... a year? Where exactly is this family? Calcutta living over an open sewer? Even trying at it, there's no such thing in the US.
And people think there's some grand difference between 500k and 500m in ways that honestly are mostly imaginary. Like if you make 500m, you eat 100 lunches per day, live in a different house every night and when you buy *anything* its 100 of the most expensive one instead of just the 1 you need.
Its this imaginary belief that's behind the silly notion that replacing income taxes with consumption taxes would work, because naturally this tiny fraction numerically of people will spend (and therefore match the consumption taxes) equivalent to litterally millions of normal people... simply because they can, not that it's based on anything practical.
In other words, there's a belief the millionaire buys the gold plated BLT every day for lunch (and 100 of them at that) rather than the same $15 lunch his 500k friend does.... just 'cuz.
Anyway no. 500k and 500m actually probably live close to the same lifestyle in reality... just the 500m person has more in the bank, more and bigger stuff, and likely employs a whole bunch of other people.
500 a year has nothing much in common with anyone in the US except homeless people.
Actually that's quite a bit unfair even for a lot of homeless. There are many who actually hustle their asses and make a few hundred bucks a DAY let alone a year. Of course, that's to shoot it into their veins and support horrendous addictions but still...
A quote below from Bernie's website. https://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/must-read/close-the-gaps-disparities-that-threaten-america
"These days, the American dream is more apt to be realized in South America, in places such as Ecuador, Venezuela and Argentina, where incomes are actually more equal today than they are in the land of Horatio Alger. Who's the banana republic now?"
'We loot or we die of hunger': food shortages fuel unrest in Venezuela
- On Margarita Island dozens of people waded into the ocean and forced their way aboard a fishing boat, making off with its catch of sardines
- In the city of Maracay, just west of Caracas, thieves broke into a veterinary school, stole two pregnant thoroughbred horses and slaughtered them for meat.
Socialism is the equal distribution of misery. Except of course for those at the top. Bernie plans on being at the top which is why he's happy to bring the Venezuelan form of government here for the "betterment" of all.
- A recent video from the western state of Mérida shows a group of people cornering a cow before stoning it to death as bystanders yell: “The people are hungry!”
Why are so many people trying to get to this country as it currently exists? Why try to change a whole nation when you can just move to one that better suits your ideals? Venezuela, Cuba, North Korea, those and a few more are offering right now exactly what you were indoctrinated to believe was a more fair and equitable system of government.
But inequality is going down. That's the only thing that counts to people like Jhhnn. Who cares if the people are worse off so long as the rich are getting screwed over worse, amirite? Making sure the rich pay their "fair share" is worth missing a meal or two, or maybe all of them for days at a time.
If what you are saying is accurate this is an incredibly powerful argument for far greater wealth and income redistribution than we have currently.
I guess we’d need to since like most progressives you’ve shown repeatedly you won’t help via voluntary charity. “I’m fine with raising my taxes” is shorthand for “hell no I won’t help unless forced to by law.” I guess your brother and sister better get ready to die since no tax increase is imminent.
Greater wealth and income distribution is great, but only if it’s EARNED. We can provide bare minimum life essentials to the indigent and lazy but it shouldn’t and can’t ever be more than that. And no a “bronze level” Obamacare plan isn’t the bare minimum.
Define earned.
As if you care. Redistribution is your mantra.
My point being ... somebody who makes $500K per year has more in common with a poor family who makes $500 per year than with somebody who makes $500M per year.
As if you care. Redistribution is your mantra.
As if you care. Redistribution is your mantra.
Irony : wealth concentration is not redistribution...
News flash, all the money leaving the lower classes to the 1%er is wealth redistribution.
What you would decry as socialism is the current economic blueprint for basically all of the most successful economies in the world. Even the US is significantly socialist. While there are certainly countries that take it too far, the idea that socialism is inherently bad has been pretty conclusively disproven by history.
It’s hard to debate these things when you don’t even understand the terms of the discussion.
News flash, high taxes is not wealth redistribution.
Wow what? Are you trying to say that it must not be bad because many successful countries have a heavy mix of it?
Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. When all of the most successful economies includes a strong dose of socialism the logical conclusion is that socialism is not an inhibitor to a successful economy and is most likely a contributor to it.
I mean surely you wouldn't dispute that socializing certain aspects of society provides superior economic outcomes to privatizing them?
Um, by definition it is. Its taking personal wealth, and moving that to something other than personal wealth.