On a Modest Proposal

[Latrinsorm]

In June I posed a question: "Is this the end of capitalism, or the end of America?" My fellow Republicans as always have the answer:

https://imgur.com/t7yIpLH.png

https://imgur.com/Kp4WbQz.png

And...

"Sen. David Perdue of Georgia said Tuesday that he supports increasing stimulus checks to $2,000 ... Sen. Kelly Loeffler indicated again Tuesday that she, too, supports increasing the direct payments." (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/29/david-perdue-kelly-loeffler-support-increasing-sti/?cache)

If Senators Perdue and Loeffler get their way, we'll have spent $4,000,000,000,000 in direct stimulus against the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 alone.
Without raising taxes - we actually lowered a few.
Without cutting a dime of other spending - that actually went up a little too.
Without causing hyperinflation - it's normally 2% and is currently at only 1%.

We just paid for it.

And it worked! In the face of a global crisis, we were able to prevent the worst of the damage just by doing this:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f53e72c09d84d32fcc4c1df7f366522d/tenor.gif?itemid=3555022

It worked, and we all saw it work.
You can't unring toothpaste.
You can't put the horse back in the bag.

So when we face the global crisis of climate change, how can we meaningfully balk at a $5,000,000,000,000 yearly price tag?

Why could we magick $4 trillion into existence but not $5 trillion?
Did we run out of spell points?
Did we lose the wizard hat and/or robe?
Perhaps our wand was inadvertently cracked by a fellow mage?

.

No, the true magick lies within us. If we only believe enough, we can summon it again. And I propose that as the world turns, the generations loyal to what they think of as "capitalism" will continue to be replaced, and those Americans yet to come into the majority witnessed our power first hand, inoculated long before they could be indoctrinated.

It's only a matter of time.

[Parkbandit]

https://img.medscapestatic.com/pi/features/drugdirectory/octupdate/UPJ00290.jpg

[Viekn]

Why could we magick $4 trillion into existence but not $5 trillion?
Did we run out of spell points?
Did we lose the wizard hat and/or robe?
Perhaps our wand was inadvertently cracked by a fellow mage?.

The US issued more bonds to pay for the stimulus, essentially borrowing that money that will have to be paid back in the future. We didn't "magic" anything. I agree that it's worth doing because our economy is based mostly on people A) having the money to spend and B) actually spending the money. But there are actual mechanisms in play that create that money and it does have financial ramifications.

[Parkbandit]

So when we face the global crisis of climate change,

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/89/31/bc/8931bc02e3670100e91adc4a27a9fdd2.gif



how can we meaningfully balk at a $5,000,000,000,000 yearly price tag?


The US TOTAL tax revenue in 2019 (prior to the covid) was 3.5 trillion.

How long do you believe we can go spending an extra 5 trillion dollars a year... or should we just stop spending all money and address this climate "crisis"?

[Tgo01]

The US issued more bonds to pay for the stimulus, essentially borrowing that money that will have to be paid back in the future. We didn't "magic" anything. I agree that it's worth doing because our economy is based mostly on people A) having the money to spend and B) actually spending the money. But there are actual mechanisms in play that create that money and it does have financial ramifications.

It's Latrinsorm. He escaped the Politics folder is and talking his nonsense in the Off-Topic folder because he thinks he will be taken more seriously here. So far he's failing.

[Parkbandit]

It's Latrinsorm. He escaped the Politics folder is and talking his nonsense in the Off-Topic folder because he thinks he will be taken more seriously here. So far he's failing.

On This We All Agree.

[Latrinsorm]

The US issued more bonds to pay for the stimulus, essentially borrowing that money that will have to be paid back in the future. We didn't "magic" anything. I agree that it's worth doing because our economy is based mostly on people A) having the money to spend and B) actually spending the money. But there are actual mechanisms in play that create that money and it does have financial ramifications.

Issued more bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/business/coronavirus-stimulus-money.html), which is to say the US borrowed money from itself, which is to say magick with a capital k. (Well... lowercase, but you get the idea.)

And the specific ramification of this is alleged to be runaway inflation. Didn't happen this year. Didn't in fact happen in any year since the Fed began QE in 2008 - we haven't even hit 4% in thirty years. Where's the beef?

[Latrinsorm]

The US TOTAL tax revenue in 2019 (prior to the covid) was 3.5 trillion.

How long do you believe we can go spending an extra 5 trillion dollars a year... or should we just stop spending all money and address this climate "crisis"?

Ten years.
Five years.
Twenty years.
I don't know.
Neither do you.
Perhaps, nobody knows.

But we know for sure we did it one year with absolutely no inflationary problems.
I know it.
You know it.
For sure, everybody knows it.

Our 1800s economic system didn't end because a bunch of professors agreed it should.
It ended because it failed in a time of great crisis, we tried something else (the Fed, FDR, etc.)...
...and it worked.

At the end of the day, when the rubber meets the road, the bottom line when all's said and done is results.

[Latrinsorm]

It's Latrinsorm. He escaped the Politics folder is and talking his nonsense in the Off-Topic folder because he thinks he will be taken more seriously here. So far he's failing.

:lol:

[Parkbandit]

Ten years.
Five years.
Twenty years.
I don't know.
Neither do you.
Perhaps, nobody knows.

But we know for sure we did it one year with absolutely no inflationary problems.
I know it.
You know it.
For sure, everybody knows it.

Our 1800s economic system didn't end because a bunch of professors agreed it should.
It ended because it failed in a time of great crisis, we tried something else (the Fed, FDR, etc.)...
...and it worked.

At the end of the day, when the rubber meets the road, the bottom line when all's said and done is results.

So, according to your "math", you are ok spending an additional 5 trillion dollars a year for 10 years. That's 50 trillion dollars on top of our current 30 trillion dollar deficit... so 80 trillion dollars.

What's the end goal?

To save the planet? Is this like the war on drugs or the war on poverty?

Or is it to just destroy the current economy and bring about your idea of utopia.. socialism/communism?

[caelric]

So, according to your "math", you are ok spending an additional 5 trillion dollars a year for 10 years. That's 50 trillion dollars on top of our current 30 trillion dollar deficit... so 80 trillion dollars.

What's the end goal?

To save the planet? Is this like the war on drugs or the war on poverty?

Or is it to just destroy the current economy and bring about your idea of utopia.. socialism/communism?

But he's a republican. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

[Bhaalizmo]

But he's a republican. Just ask him, he'll tell you.

No PB. Just no.

[Neveragain]

Issued more bonds that were purchased by the Federal Reserve (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/15/business/coronavirus-stimulus-money.html), which is to say the US borrowed money from itself, which is to say magick with a capital k. (Well... lowercase, but you get the idea.)

And the specific ramification of this is alleged to be runaway inflation. Didn't happen this year. Didn't in fact happen in any year since the Fed began QE in 2008 - we haven't even hit 4% in thirty years. Where's the beef?

Barrowing money from the federal reserve is not the "US barrowing money to itself". It's the US, like a corporation, creating more stock and placing it on the market. Creating more stock cheapens the value of the existing "UScorporation" stocks. Eventually you can no longer place more stock on the market, investors (China) will lose faith in ever seeing a return on their investments.

[RichardCranium]

No PB. Just no.

Latrinsorm is in fact a republican.

And he apparently gets his toothpaste from a bag.

[caelric]

No PB. Just no.

Sorry, andraste, just because you have multiple alts to agree with yourself doesn't mean everyone else does.

[Bhaalizmo]

Sorry, andraste, just because you have multiple alts to agree with yourself doesn't mean everyone else does.

Who is Andraste, and why do you capitalize it when you couldn't be bothered to capitalize a letter when creating your username?

You are the PB alt. The rep scheme alt. Doing exactly what you described, agreeing with yourself and outing yourself by attempting to project it on others.

[caelric]

Who is Andraste, and why do you capitalize it when you couldn't be bothered to capitalize a letter when creating your username?

You are the PB alt. The rep scheme alt. Doing exactly what you described, agreeing with yourself and outing yourself by attempting to project it on others.

You're not very bright, are you.

[Latrinsorm]

So, according to your "math", you are ok spending an additional 5 trillion dollars a year for 10 years. That's 50 trillion dollars on top of our current 30 trillion dollar deficit... so 80 trillion dollars.

What's the end goal?

To save the planet? Is this like the war on drugs or the war on poverty?

Or is it to just destroy the current economy and bring about your idea of utopia.. socialism/communism?

The economy would have been destroyed without these massive government interventions many times in our nation's history. It's your bad luck two of them happened in the formative years of back to back generations - the percentage of the population that believes as you do dwindles every day.

As for the "end goal", it's the same as it ought to be for every other exercise of our government:
to form a more perfect Union,
establish Justice,
ensure domestic Tranquility,
provide for the common defence,
promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.

[Latrinsorm]

Barrowing money from the federal reserve is not the "US barrowing money to itself". It's the US, like a corporation, creating more stock and placing it on the market. Creating more stock cheapens the value of the existing "UScorporation" stocks. Eventually you can no longer place more stock on the market, investors (China) will lose faith in ever seeing a return on their investments.

Except we can measure the "value" of those "existing" "stocks", and it turns out it wasn't "cheapen[ed]".

"Eventually" covers anywhere from printing $1 to printing $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000 and beyond, it's a completely useless observation. We know the lower bound is above $3,500,000,000,000 for sure, that just happened and we were fine. Is it more likely there's a sudden cliff at $3,500,000,000,001 or that this depiction of economics turned out to be wildly overstated?

[Latrinsorm]

Latrinsorm is in fact a republican.

And he apparently gets his toothpaste from a bag.

This guy gets it.

[Neveragain]

Except we can measure the "value" of those "existing" "stocks", and it turns out it wasn't "cheapen[ed]".

"Eventually" covers anywhere from printing $1 to printing $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000 and beyond, it's a completely useless observation. We know the lower bound is above $3,500,000,000,000 for sure, that just happened and we were fine. Is it more likely there's a sudden cliff at $3,500,000,000,001 or that this depiction of economics turned out to be wildly overstated?

There's a sudden cliff when investors decide the stock doesn't have the value it use to or they see a risk in holding your stock. Only an idiot would suggest that we can just keep "printing" money and not have it devalue the dollar.

This is going to become even more obvious as we move away from oil, USstock will lose it's value on the world market.

[Parkbandit]

Except we can measure the "value" of those "existing" "stocks", and it turns out it wasn't "cheapen[ed]".

"Eventually" covers anywhere from printing $1 to printing $1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 ,000,000,000,000,000,000 and beyond, it's a completely useless observation. We know the lower bound is above $3,500,000,000,000 for sure, that just happened and we were fine. Is it more likely there's a sudden cliff at $3,500,000,000,001 or that this depiction of economics turned out to be wildly overstated?

So, why only stop at a mere 5 trillion dollars a year to save the planet? Why not 10 trillion? And if 10 trillion will do a good job, you know 20 trillion will do TWICE as good of a job. Hell, why not 100 trillion? Do you hate the planet that much where you only want to spend a measly 5 trillion dollars on it?

Fuck the Off-topic category, maybe we can ask Kranar to create an alternative reality channel where facts don't have to be considered for your foolish ideas.

[caelric]

Only an idiot would suggest that we can just keep "printing" money and not have it devalue the dollar.

Funny thing is, latrin is the one who started the thread, so it fits right in.

[Parkbandit]

As for the "end goal", it's the same as it ought to be for every other exercise of our government:
to form a more perfect Union,


https://cdni.rbth.com/rbthmedia/images/2020.02/original/5e4fc37185600a3a8c630bbe.jpg

[Latrinsorm]

So, why only stop at a mere 5 trillion dollars a year to save the planet? Why not 10 trillion? And if 10 trillion will do a good job, you know 20 trillion will do TWICE as good of a job. Hell, why not 100 trillion? Do you hate the planet that much where you only want to spend a measly 5 trillion dollars on it?

Fuck the Off-topic category, maybe we can ask Kranar to create an alternative reality channel where facts don't have to be considered for your foolish ideas.

The fact is that $4 trillion did not cause even above average inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
This fact is indisputable, most clearly demonstrated by no one in this thread even trying.

You can be sarcastic about it and it remains a fact.
You can be petulant about it and it remains a fact.
You can be mad about it... and it remains a fact.

Governor/Ambassador Haley saw it.
Senator Loeffler saw it.
We all saw it.

Decades of indoctrination probably mean your generation by and large won't forget the unthinking reflex you've displayed so predictably here, but that's not the proposal.
The proposal is that this generation won't forget the indisputable fact of socialism working.

I don't have to convince you.
I just have to outlive you.

.

This is the part where you'll probably want to pull out the old 'voters become more R as they grow up' canard so let me save us both some time.

In 2004, voters aged 18-29 went 54-45 D, and were 17% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 30-49 went 53-45 D, and were 32% of the vote.

In 2004, voters aged 30-44 went 53-46 R, and were 29% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 50-64 went 52-47 R, and were 30% of the vote.

TikTok.

[Neveragain]

The fact is that $4 trillion did not cause even above average inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
This fact is indisputable, most clearly demonstrated by no one in this thread even trying.

https://www.coalitionforthehomeless.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/SOTH2017_Chart2.jpg

[Parkbandit]

The fact is that $4 trillion did not cause even above average inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
This fact is indisputable, most clearly demonstrated by no one in this thread even trying.

You can be sarcastic about it and it remains a fact.
You can be petulant about it and it remains a fact.
You can be mad about it... and it remains a fact.

Governor/Ambassador Haley saw it.
Senator Loeffler saw it.
We all saw it.

Decades of indoctrination probably mean your generation by and large won't forget the unthinking reflex you've displayed so predictably here, but that's not the proposal.
The proposal is that this generation won't forget the indisputable fact of socialism working.

I don't have to convince you.
I just have to outlive you.

.

This is the part where you'll probably want to pull out the old 'voters become more R as they grow up' canard so let me save us both some time.

In 2004, voters aged 18-29 went 54-45 D, and were 17% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 30-49 went 53-45 D, and were 32% of the vote.

In 2004, voters aged 30-44 went 53-46 R, and were 29% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 50-64 went 52-47 R, and were 30% of the vote.

TikTok.

Yes, socialism does work.. in the short term. In 2005, the best example of socialism working on the planet was Venezuela. It was the crown jewel of the socialist utopia... for about a decade... and then it collapsed under it's own weight and corruption.

Each economic system requires a basic human trait to be used for motivation.

Capitalism is greed. The more you work, the more money you can make.

What is the basic human trait that socialism uses?

[Neveragain]

The homeless numbers nearly double since 2008 but the 4 trillion worked.

:clown:

[Latrinsorm]

Yes, socialism does work.. in the short term. In 2005, the best example of socialism working on the planet was Venezuela. It was the crown jewel of the socialist utopia... for about a decade... and then it collapsed under it's own weight and corruption.

A number of things wrong here, but sure, let's talk about a decade. A decade after the massive 2008 bailouts it was 2018. Here's you parroting a popular word used to describe the economy in 2018. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?114022-Denouement-of-U-S-Empire&p=2032582&highlight=booming#post2032582) So much for collapse.

It worked then, when you pointed at the USSR.
It works now, when you point at Venezuela.
It will work in the future, when you're pointing at whatever they tell you to point at next.

The only difference will be the relative proportion of people still believing the same lies you do, including but not limited to your charmingly naïve understanding of capitalism.

If a firefighter saves my house, I don't care if a firefighter in Romania failed to save some Romanian's house, I'm still gonna be pro-firefighter.

[Latrinsorm]

The homeless numbers nearly double since 2008 but the 4 trillion worked.

:clown:

As my fellow Republicans can tell you, New York City is not representative of the nation as a whole. Per the Department of Housing and Urban Development, the national number of homeless declined quite steadily from 2008 to 2016.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/8/87/US_yearly_timeline_of_people_experiencing_homeless ness.gif/1024px-US_yearly_timeline_of_people_experiencing_homeless ness.gif

What this has to do with the price of tea in USD is beyond me, but if you have any other wrong beliefs you'd like me to immediately and categorically disprove I guess I'm up for that.

[Back]

Latrin,

Thanks for being a beacon of light in a world of shit. And by that I mean posting truth instead of all the moronic crap that gets posted to the PC.

Never lose that edge, brother.

B

[caelric]

Latrin,

Thanks for being a beacon of light in a world of shit. And by that I mean posting truth instead of all the moronic crap that gets posted to the PC.

Never lose that edge, brother.

B

How ironic.

[Neveragain]

Latrin,

Thanks for being a beacon of light in a world of shit. And by that I mean posting truth instead of all the moronic crap that gets posted to the PC.

Never lose that edge, brother.

B

The truth is that the US is NOT lending money to itself. You are following a beacon of retardation if you believe otherwise.

[Parkbandit]

A number of things wrong here, but sure, let's talk about a decade. A decade after the massive 2008 bailouts it was 2018. Here's you parroting a popular word used to describe the economy in 2018. (http://forum.gsplayers.com/showthread.php?114022-Denouement-of-U-S-Empire&p=2032582&highlight=booming#post2032582) So much for collapse.

It worked then, when you pointed at the USSR.
It works now, when you point at Venezuela.
It will work in the future, when you're pointing at whatever they tell you to point at next.

The only difference will be the relative proportion of people still believing the same lies you do, including but not limited to your charmingly naïve understanding of capitalism.

If a firefighter saves my house, I don't care if a firefighter in Romania failed to save some Romanian's house, I'm still gonna be pro-firefighter.

Wait.. you believe that Venezuela works now?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/venezuela-economy-facts-2019-5-1028225117

[Parkbandit]

How ironic.

That's not ironic.. that's retarded.

Or.. that's Backlash.

[Neveragain]

Dollar sucked into downward spiral by U.S. twin deficits (https://www.reuters.com/article/global-forex-int-idUSKBN29501O?taid=5fed54f5fbbbbf0001f22ea7&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)



Latrinsorm, Back, and the rest of the idiots: We can totally just print up 5 trillion dollars a year to fight "climate change" with no adverse effects!

Yea, the dollar is so strong that people are dumping the dollar into a currency that they are not sure will even have value in a year from now.

[Parkbandit]

Dollar sucked into downward spiral by U.S. twin deficits (https://www.reuters.com/article/global-forex-int-idUSKBN29501O?taid=5fed54f5fbbbbf0001f22ea7&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)

Latrinsorm, Back, and the rest of the idiots: We can totally just print up 5 trillion dollars a year to fight "climate change" with no adverse effects!

Why do you hate the planet so much?

[Methais]

I hope the next Latrin thread is called “On Shutting The Fuck Up”

[Methais]

Who is Andraste, and why do you capitalize it when you couldn't be bothered to capitalize a letter when creating your username?

You are the PB alt. The rep scheme alt. Doing exactly what you described, agreeing with yourself and outing yourself by attempting to project it on others.

lol @ you playing the “Who is Andraste?” card on both this and your time4fun account almost back to back. :lol:

What a Gaylord Focker.

[Latrinsorm]

Dollar sucked into downward spiral by U.S. twin deficits (https://www.reuters.com/article/global-forex-int-idUSKBN29501O?taid=5fed54f5fbbbbf0001f22ea7&utm_campaign=trueAnthem:+Trending+Content&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=twitter)



Latrinsorm, Back, and the rest of the idiots: We can totally just print up 5 trillion dollars a year to fight "climate change" with no adverse effects!

Time for another lesson? Okay: "The prospect of a brighter 2021 has lessened the need for the safe-haven dollar, while burnishing the attraction of riskier assets especially in emerging markets." The dollar being stronger is why people are projected to invest in it less.

Stop.

Your knee jerk reflexes are already kicking in.
For once, try thinking with your brain instead.
What I just put was a direct quote, occurring in the eighth paragraph.
What you put was not a direct quote, occurring not in the article but only your imagination.

If you don't understand why people would want to invest less in a stronger currency, you don't understand how money actually works.
Which is fine! It's not like people are born with an understanding of economics, monetary policy, currency investing.
You can choose to put in the effort to learn them, or you can choose to continue proudly floundering in ignorance.

You can't choose what has already and undeniably happened.
And you can't choose to have everyone forget it.

.

Since you bring it up though, yes, our investments to mitigate the climate change crisis will FURTHER drive investment to emerging markets. Unless you'd rather have 80% of $100 than 70% of $200, this is a good thing! "America First" is a slogan, not a sound economic principle, which is why it has so immediately and catastrophically failed every time it has been tried.

[Latrinsorm]

The truth is that the US is NOT lending money to itself. You are following a beacon of retardation if you believe otherwise.

I have posted a direct link to a source that says it is.

What is your source for who bought the bonds we used to fund the 2020 bailouts passed by the US Congress?

And I'll say it again, the 2020 bailouts passed by the US Congress. Linking to a 2008 article about China is completely irrelevant, please spare us the indignity of watching you embarrass yourself.

[Latrinsorm]

Wait.. you believe that Venezuela works now?

https://markets.businessinsider.com/news/stocks/venezuela-economy-facts-2019-5-1028225117

Venezuela did not receive any bailouts in 2008. Let's try this again.

I believe you said that socialism works "in the short term ... for about a decade".
I believe the United States economy received massive socialist intervention in 2008.
I believe you agreed the United States economy was "booming" in 2018.
I believe 2018 is about a decade later than 2008.

And I believe Americans care way more about what happens to them than what happens to Venezuelans or any other people.

So let's talk about what you believe.

Let's talk about what you believe about President Jimmy Carter.
You don't believe he was a socialist (I hope) but you do believe he was an unmitigated failure.
You don't believe, that is, in any of the mitigating circumstances of his administration.

What age were you then?

Why do you think people who are that age now will care any more about what you believe the mitigating circumstances are for the Trump administration?

[Neveragain]

I have posted a direct link to a source that says it is.

What is your source for who bought the bonds we used to fund the 2020 bailouts passed by the US Congress?

And I'll say it again, the 2020 bailouts passed by the US Congress. Linking to a 2008 article about China is completely irrelevant, please spare us the indignity of watching you embarrass yourself.

Sure, latrin.

We pass a bailout, the dollar falls against the Euro and the yuan. The article literally says that Chinese traders had to bailout the dollar.

It's ok to be wrong.

[Menos]

lol @ you playing the “Who is Andraste?” card on both this and your time4fun account almost back to back. :lol:

What a Gaylord Focker.

You would think that if it is necessary to create an alternate identity because of how much negative baggage the first one has, that would be cause for some kind of introspection. Just some random thoughts for lunch time posting.

[Methais]

The fact is that $4 trillion did not cause even above average inflation, let alone hyperinflation.
This fact is indisputable, most clearly demonstrated by no one in this thread even trying.

You can be sarcastic about it and it remains a fact.
You can be petulant about it and it remains a fact.
You can be mad about it... and it remains a fact.

Governor/Ambassador Haley saw it.
Senator Loeffler saw it.
We all saw it.

Decades of indoctrination probably mean your generation by and large won't forget the unthinking reflex you've displayed so predictably here, but that's not the proposal.
The proposal is that this generation won't forget the indisputable fact of socialism working.

I don't have to convince you.
I just have to outlive you.

.

This is the part where you'll probably want to pull out the old 'voters become more R as they grow up' canard so let me save us both some time.

In 2004, voters aged 18-29 went 54-45 D, and were 17% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 30-49 went 53-45 D, and were 32% of the vote.

In 2004, voters aged 30-44 went 53-46 R, and were 29% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 50-64 went 52-47 R, and were 30% of the vote.

TikTok.

You're in your 30s and you still don't know how to grocery shop but yes let's listen to your economic advice.

[Tgo01]

The dollar being stronger is why people are projected to invest in it less.

In case you are wondering why so many people don’t want to play with you anymore, this right here is the reason. When you clearly have no idea what you are talking about you just make something up to sound smart.

You’re welcome for the free advice.

[Neveragain]

There's nothing shameful about losing to China. They are pretty much the best there's ever been at this world trade/finance gig.

[Neveragain]

Sure if we lost fair and square. The shameful part is how most of our government, both Republicans and Democrats, have sold us to China to enrich themselves and their families.

Yes, but we elected them so.........

America is Elvis in his latter years, overweight and strung out on pain killers. You can still sell the tickets but you know there's a new gig in town.

[Latrinsorm]

In case you are wondering why so many people don’t want to play with you anymore, this right here is the reason. When you clearly have no idea what you are talking about you just make something up to sound smart.

You’re welcome for the free advice.

Don't read your own article, don't read the quote from it I patiently provided - I see you've chosen to stick with floundering. Ah well.

[Latrinsorm]

Sure, latrin.

We pass a bailout, the dollar falls against the Euro and the yuan. The article literally says that Chinese traders had to bailout the dollar.

It's ok to be wrong.

Three articles have been posted in this thread, none of which mention China or the Chinese at all.

I take it you fellows got an early start on the traditional holiday drunkenness?

[Neveragain]

Three articles have been posted in this thread, none of which mention China or the Chinese at all.

I take it you fellows got an early start on the traditional holiday drunkenness?

It's ok to be wrong.

[Parkbandit]

Sure if we lost fair and square. The shameful part is how most of our government, both Republicans and Democrats, have sold us to China to enrich themselves and their families.

That sounds like a Russian hoax. I know this, because Twitter "fact checked" it so I know it's true.

[Back]

I'm going to start this post by saying I am not writing some dissertation for a degree. I'm only expending enough energy that I care to for a forum post that a few knuckleheads will read. Its just me shouting at the void on a day I don't have to work.


Capitalism is greed.

There's your problem right there. I don't think we can parse it down to just that but lets talk about that aspect of it.

I think some private property can be appropriate and that generating wealth without destroying the environment can also be appropriate. The real issue with your statement and capitalism in general is hoarding.

We all agree that hoarding is bad. That one person can have more than they will ever use while another starves to death in the cold is an unjust situation. Society needs to step in to change that.

Government is the tool that society uses to make, judge, and enforce laws written to protect the people. Bemoan the so called "nanny state" all you want its there to protect you and everyone else fairly and equitably so that the people of society can live peacefully and prosper. As a society when we finally get the nerve to do it we will disallow hoarding so that more people can live peacefully and prosper together. I firmly believe this is better for ALL people even the poor poor rich people who will be slightly less wealthy.


The more you work, the more money you can make.

This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Lets talk about that motivation for a moment. Since our society is built on wealth and greed, and the wealthy and greed have the most of everything including power, they call the shots, or set the tone for society. It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make. Thankfully that has been tempered by unions so we aren't all slaves so we get a day off with pay here and there.

So here we are with the most powerful, wealthy, GREEDY people running the whole show with the perception that all that greed and wealth are the way people win in society. This has become our measure for success or even self worth. If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative. We are at the point where people even think less of themselves because they aren't wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, greed or hoarding, is not a good trait.

The individual who provides is the real hero. The individual who breaks their back their whole life to provide for their family despite the toil is the real hero. This is the true worth of work.


What is the basic human trait that socialism uses?

Just being fucking human. Caring that other people need help. Wanting to see everyone prosper. Understanding that and not being ashamed is how we will reject the fears that keep holding us back. We need to work to provide so that we all prosper.

Oh and happy new year. My first post of 2021.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to start this post by saying I am not writing some dissertation for a degree. I'm only expending enough energy that I care to for a forum post that a few knuckleheads will read. Its just me shouting at the void on a day I don't have to work.

There's your problem right there. I don't think we can parse it down to just that but lets talk about that aspect of it.

I think some private property can be appropriate and that generating wealth without destroying the environment can also be appropriate. The real issue with your statement and capitalism in general is hoarding.

We all agree that hoarding is bad. That one person can have more than they will ever use while another starves to death in the cold is an unjust situation. Society needs to step in to change that.

Government is the tool that society uses to make, judge, and enforce laws written to protect the people. Bemoan the so called "nanny state" all you want its there to protect you and everyone else fairly and equitably so that the people of society can live peacefully and prosper. As a society when we finally get the nerve to do it we will disallow hoarding so that more people can live peacefully and prosper together. I firmly believe this is better for ALL people even the poor poor rich people who will be slightly less wealthy.

This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Lets talk about that motivation for a moment. Since our society is built on wealth and greed, and the wealthy and greed have the most of everything including power, they call the shots, or set the tone for society. It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make. Thankfully that has been tempered by unions so we aren't all slaves so we get a day off with pay here and there.

So here we are with the most powerful, wealthy, GREEDY people running the whole show with the perception that all that greed and wealth are the way people win in society. This has become our measure for success or even self worth. If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative. We are at the point where people even think less of themselves because they aren't wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, greed or hoarding, is not a good trait.

The individual who provides is the real hero. The individual who breaks their back their whole life to provide for their family despite the toil is the real hero. This is the true worth of work.

Just being fucking human. Caring that other people need help. Wanting to see everyone prosper. Understanding that and not being ashamed is how we will reject the fears that keep holding us back. We need to work to provide so that we all prosper.

Oh and happy new year. My first post of 2021.

Starting the New Year with a solid bang. Well done.

[Wrathbringer]

I'm going to start this post by saying I am not writing some dissertation for a degree. I'm only expending enough energy that I care to for a forum post that a few knuckleheads will read. Its just me shouting at the void on a day I don't have to work.



There's your problem right there. I don't think we can parse it down to just that but lets talk about that aspect of it.

I think some private property can be appropriate and that generating wealth without destroying the environment can also be appropriate. The real issue with your statement and capitalism in general is hoarding.

We all agree that hoarding is bad. That one person can have more than they will ever use while another starves to death in the cold is an unjust situation. Society needs to step in to change that.

Government is the tool that society uses to make, judge, and enforce laws written to protect the people. Bemoan the so called "nanny state" all you want its there to protect you and everyone else fairly and equitably so that the people of society can live peacefully and prosper. As a society when we finally get the nerve to do it we will disallow hoarding so that more people can live peacefully and prosper together. I firmly believe this is better for ALL people even the poor poor rich people who will be slightly less wealthy.



This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Lets talk about that motivation for a moment. Since our society is built on wealth and greed, and the wealthy and greed have the most of everything including power, they call the shots, or set the tone for society. It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make. Thankfully that has been tempered by unions so we aren't all slaves so we get a day off with pay here and there.

So here we are with the most powerful, wealthy, GREEDY people running the whole show with the perception that all that greed and wealth are the way people win in society. This has become our measure for success or even self worth. If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative. We are at the point where people even think less of themselves because they aren't wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, greed or hoarding, is not a good trait.

The individual who provides is the real hero. The individual who breaks their back their whole life to provide for their family despite the toil is the real hero. This is the true worth of work.



Just being fucking human. Caring that other people need help. Wanting to see everyone prosper. Understanding that and not being ashamed is how we will reject the fears that keep holding us back. We need to work to provide so that we all prosper.

Oh and happy new year. My first post of 2021.

Just because most people are unwilling to learn how to manage and grow their money doesn't mean that the system is flawed. It means people are ignorant. People stay poor not because they are underprivileged or oppressed, but because they choose to be. At some point, each of us must transition from working for our money to making our money work for us. Most people never make that transition. Why? Because they're too busy spending their money on consumables like fast food, addictive substances, tv's, phones, cable, etc., until they're broke and waiting on that next check so they can perpetuate that cycle indefinitely. The rest of us do without those things for a few years while we're working and investing our money so that after ten years or so, we no longer need to sell our time for money and can still afford all of those luxuries I mentioned before. Just because people don't seem to be interested in learning how to do that does not mean that government needs to step in and confiscate successful people's money and goods in order to give it to some ignorant fuck such as yourself so that they can waste it and need more next week. Get a clue.

[Parkbandit]

I'm going to start this post by saying I am not writing some dissertation for a degree. I'm only expending enough energy that I care to for a forum post that a few knuckleheads will read. Its just me shouting at the void on a day I don't have to work.

There's your problem right there. I don't think we can parse it down to just that but lets talk about that aspect of it.

I think some private property can be appropriate and that generating wealth without destroying the environment can also be appropriate. The real issue with your statement and capitalism in general is hoarding.

We all agree that hoarding is bad. That one person can have more than they will ever use while another starves to death in the cold is an unjust situation. Society needs to step in to change that.

Government is the tool that society uses to make, judge, and enforce laws written to protect the people. Bemoan the so called "nanny state" all you want its there to protect you and everyone else fairly and equitably so that the people of society can live peacefully and prosper. As a society when we finally get the nerve to do it we will disallow hoarding so that more people can live peacefully and prosper together. I firmly believe this is better for ALL people even the poor poor rich people who will be slightly less wealthy.

This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Lets talk about that motivation for a moment. Since our society is built on wealth and greed, and the wealthy and greed have the most of everything including power, they call the shots, or set the tone for society. It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make. Thankfully that has been tempered by unions so we aren't all slaves so we get a day off with pay here and there.

So here we are with the most powerful, wealthy, GREEDY people running the whole show with the perception that all that greed and wealth are the way people win in society. This has become our measure for success or even self worth. If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative. We are at the point where people even think less of themselves because they aren't wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, greed or hoarding, is not a good trait.

The individual who provides is the real hero. The individual who breaks their back their whole life to provide for their family despite the toil is the real hero. This is the true worth of work.

Just being fucking human. Caring that other people need help. Wanting to see everyone prosper. Understanding that and not being ashamed is how we will reject the fears that keep holding us back. We need to work to provide so that we all prosper.

Oh and happy new year. My first post of 2021.

"Caring" isn't a basic human trait. If it were, there would be no crime. There would be no need for armies, police, guns, clubs, knives...

Until we elect CareBear as Emperor of the Planet, you're living a pipedream.

https://media4.giphy.com/media/hu6cihoTjZgR2/source.gif

[Viekn]

Replying to your post Back but not quoting for purposes of post brevity...

You're not necessarily wrong on the points you make. But when you think about it, 1950 was only 70 years ago. My point is this: think about how different things were in 1950 and how they are now; and some things aren't all that different now. The idealism you talk about and the way society should care and do more to take care of it's own would realistically take another 100 years or more to manifest in America. Currently there are too many people alive and young enough to have seen just how bad socialism can be vs. what good it can possibly do. I agree that it's frustrating. You mention this...


If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative.

This is absolutely true. I have experienced this and currently still do given where I live and my current situation in life. I don't agree with it, but my not agreeing with it or even complaining about it does absolute shit to change it. It will only take time and/or some type of financial or ecological disaster to change the direction of the giant ship that is the USofA. And as much as I'd like to see the positive aspects that the more socially minded politicians strive for, a lot of times what they're trying to accomplish elicit such a negative backlash that it does more harm than good. Given the current status quo in our country, I think it makes more sense to implement smaller common sense changes here and there within how the current system works than to try to force significant change. I believe that does mean more people continue to suffer in the mean time, but as the saying goes: it is what it is.

[Neveragain]

I'm going to start this post by saying I am not writing some dissertation for a degree. I'm only expending enough energy that I care to for a forum post that a few knuckleheads will read. Its just me shouting at the void on a day I don't have to work.



There's your problem right there. I don't think we can parse it down to just that but lets talk about that aspect of it.

I think some private property can be appropriate and that generating wealth without destroying the environment can also be appropriate. The real issue with your statement and capitalism in general is hoarding.

We all agree that hoarding is bad. That one person can have more than they will ever use while another starves to death in the cold is an unjust situation. Society needs to step in to change that.

Government is the tool that society uses to make, judge, and enforce laws written to protect the people. Bemoan the so called "nanny state" all you want its there to protect you and everyone else fairly and equitably so that the people of society can live peacefully and prosper. As a society when we finally get the nerve to do it we will disallow hoarding so that more people can live peacefully and prosper together. I firmly believe this is better for ALL people even the poor poor rich people who will be slightly less wealthy.



This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Lets talk about that motivation for a moment. Since our society is built on wealth and greed, and the wealthy and greed have the most of everything including power, they call the shots, or set the tone for society. It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make. Thankfully that has been tempered by unions so we aren't all slaves so we get a day off with pay here and there.

So here we are with the most powerful, wealthy, GREEDY people running the whole show with the perception that all that greed and wealth are the way people win in society. This has become our measure for success or even self worth. If someone ISN'T greedy or wealthy, if they aren't out there breaking their backs to achieve wealth and power, its seen as a negative. We are at the point where people even think less of themselves because they aren't wealthy. Nothing could be further from the truth. As we all know, greed or hoarding, is not a good trait.

The individual who provides is the real hero. The individual who breaks their back their whole life to provide for their family despite the toil is the real hero. This is the true worth of work.



Just being fucking human. Caring that other people need help. Wanting to see everyone prosper. Understanding that and not being ashamed is how we will reject the fears that keep holding us back. We need to work to provide so that we all prosper.

Oh and happy new year. My first post of 2021.


It is the bosses who say what time you have to be at work, what days you work, and how much you make.

Imagine a world where you can own your very own business.....

Stupid fucker.

[Viekn]

Imagine a world where you can own your very own business.....

Stupid fucker.

Unless Back said he wants straight up socialism vs. capitalism (I read all but 1% of the politically related posts, so he might have), why do you assume he wants that type of socialism where you can't own a business for yourself vs. just expanding government funded healthcare so people at least have a choice of not depending on their employer for healthcare?

[caelric]

Unless Back said he wants straight up socialism vs. capitalism (I read all but 1% of the politically related posts, so he might have), why do you assume he wants that type of socialism where you can't own a business for yourself vs. just expanding government funded healthcare so people at least have a choice of not depending on their employer for healthcare?

Read Back's posts. He wants straight up communism, not even socialism.

[Viekn]

Read Back's posts. He wants straight up communism, not even socialism.

lol, yeah, hence my disclaimer, because I could definitely see defending Back's intentions but walking straight in to a wall on that one.

[Neveragain]

Unless Back said he wants straight up socialism vs. capitalism (I read all but 1% of the politically related posts, so he might have), why do you assume he wants that type of socialism where you can't own a business for yourself vs. just expanding government funded healthcare so people at least have a choice of not depending on their employer for healthcare?

That shit reads like he wants to be able to simply exist and collect a 7 figure salary. It's fucking pathetic, imagine working beside that shit 8 hours a day.

One of the most powerful business tools ever available to man and he's using it to bitch about how he has to work 8 hours a day.

I think Back is single, absolutely nothing stopping him from making financial moves. It's incredibly easy to fix your credit if it's fucked, no excuses at all man.

[Viekn]

That shit reads like he wants to be able to simply exist and collect a 7 figure salary. It's fucking pathetic, imagine working beside that shit 8 hours a day.

One of the most powerful business tools ever available to man and he's using it to bitch about how he has to work 8 hours a day.

I think Back is single, absolutely nothing stopping him from making financial moves. It's incredibly easy to fix your credit if it's fucked, no excuses at all man.

Yeah, unfortunately it seems like the people (speaking in generalities of course) that speak the loudest and hence get noticed are typically pretty far on either end of the left or right spectrum. We'd all benefit from a middle ground, but unfortunately if either side gives an inch, they feel the other side will take a mile, and they're probably not wrong.

[caelric]

That shit reads like he wants to be able to simply exist and collect a 7 figure salary.

That's pretty much every socialist/communist out there. They all want to do as little work as possible, and enjoy the fruits of other's labors. Basically, they want to be slave masters, enjoying the luxury of other's work, while doing little of their own.

[Parkbandit]

Unless Back said he wants straight up socialism vs. capitalism (I read all but 1% of the politically related posts, so he might have), why do you assume he wants that type of socialism where you can't own a business for yourself vs. just expanding government funded healthcare so people at least have a choice of not depending on their employer for healthcare?

You must be new to the forums. His desire is straight up communism where he doesn't have to work at all and will have things given to him.. because he deserves it. The evil banks/oil companies/rich people/{insert any group Backlash deems evil here} stole all his opportunities and wealth and he deserves it back.

He actually believes that society should reward the lazy, the weak, the kids who had shitty parents growing up that didn't instill any sort of work ethic, etc...

[Parkbandit]

That's pretty much every socialist/communist out there. They all want to do as little work as possible, and enjoy the fruits of other's labors. Basically, they want to be slave masters, enjoying the luxury of other's work, while doing little of their own.

That's the thing.. people like Backlash honestly believe everyone will contribute because of human kindness and people won't have to work.

The problem with his "theory" is that when people realize they are working 90% of the time for someone else to sit around the house and play Playstation.. they will quickly lose this human trait of "caring".

[Neveragain]

That's pretty much every socialist/communist out there. They all want to do as little work as possible, and enjoy the fruits of other's labors. Basically, they want to be slave masters, enjoying the luxury of other's work, while doing little of their own.

I know if I were a younger man in todays world, had no immediate family to concern myself with and was having trouble finding my groove, I would enlist in the Navy.

[Back]

You want to know what I think? Ask me. Read my posts.

Don't listen to what anyone else says about me or what they think I say, mean, or believe.

Thanks.

[caelric]

You want to know what I think? Ask me. Read my posts.

Don't listen to what anyone else says about me or what they think I say, mean, or believe.

Thanks.

Oh, Back, it's so cute that you claim you actually think.

[time4fun]

In June I posed a question: "Is this the end of capitalism, or the end of America?" My fellow Republicans as always have the answer:

https://imgur.com/t7yIpLH.png

https://imgur.com/Kp4WbQz.png

And...

"Sen. David Perdue of Georgia said Tuesday that he supports increasing stimulus checks to $2,000 ... Sen. Kelly Loeffler indicated again Tuesday that she, too, supports increasing the direct payments." (https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/dec/29/david-perdue-kelly-loeffler-support-increasing-sti/?cache)

If Senators Perdue and Loeffler get their way, we'll have spent $4,000,000,000,000 in direct stimulus against the coronavirus pandemic in 2020 alone.
Without raising taxes - we actually lowered a few.
Without cutting a dime of other spending - that actually went up a little too.
Without causing hyperinflation - it's normally 2% and is currently at only 1%.

We just paid for it.

And it worked! In the face of a global crisis, we were able to prevent the worst of the damage just by doing this:

https://media1.tenor.com/images/f53e72c09d84d32fcc4c1df7f366522d/tenor.gif?itemid=3555022

It worked, and we all saw it work.
You can't unring toothpaste.
You can't put the horse back in the bag.

So when we face the global crisis of climate change, how can we meaningfully balk at a $5,000,000,000,000 yearly price tag?

Why could we magick $4 trillion into existence but not $5 trillion?
Did we run out of spell points?
Did we lose the wizard hat and/or robe?
Perhaps our wand was inadvertently cracked by a fellow mage?
.

No, the true magick lies within us. If we only believe enough, we can summon it again. And I propose that as the world turns, the generations loyal to what they think of as "capitalism" will continue to be replaced, and those Americans yet to come into the majority witnessed our power first hand, inoculated long before they could be indoctrinated.

It's only a matter of time.

I'm side-stepping a bit here and focusing on the "socialism" part of those idiotic tweets.

This whole "OMG Dems are socialist!" thing is exhausting. Government assistance to the needy and government economic stimulus measures aren't the opposite of capitalism. They're the opposite of libertarianism.

Capitalist governments, socialist governments, and everyone in between has programs that help the needy and have economic stimulus initiatives. Because doing those things is neither capitalist nor socialist. It's called responsible governing.

I'm just going to keep throwing these definitions out until they finally sink in:

Capitalism: an economy where people are employed to produce goods, services, knowledge, etc. which are then the property of the employer. That's it. That's literally all it means.

Marxism: A political philosophy that posits that all forms of oppression are ultimately the result of economic inequality- specifically between the Proletariat (workers who own nothing and sell their labor) and...well literally everyone else. He was less clear about the "everyone else" except that they were the ones who owned land, farms, etc.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are either owned by the government or collectively owned by the workers. This was seen as a potential solve for the problems Marx fixated on. That's it. That's literally that it means.

If people would spend a fraction of the time they spend blindly consuming politically motivated misinformation and fear mongering about socialism actually learning about it...this country wouldn't be so screwed up.

[Methais]

This is bullshit. Sorry, a man can break his back in this world his whole life and still never see the kind of wealth that other luckier or privileged individuals will see. In fact, if it wasn't already plainly obvious, the very wealthy are few and far between, so its an exception, not a rule, that an individual can attain that kind of wealth by whatever means. Thats the carrot and the stick they use to get people motivated to clock in to their 9 to 5 that ultimately really only makes the boss rich.

Remember when you tried to say you owned a restaurant though?

Know what that would have made you if you weren't a pathological liar? The boss.

How much did you pay your wait staff in this restaurant that you pretend owned? Surely you paid them at least $15/hr, right?

[Parkbandit]

Remember when you tried to say you owned a restaurant though?

Know what that would have made you if you weren't a pathological liar? The boss.

How much did you pay your wait staff in this restaurant that you pretend owned? Surely you paid them at least $15/hr, right?

It's like the time he said he owned a gun, then remembered he's against guns and never spoke of his pretend gun again.

You can't spell liberals without L-I-A-R-S

[Neveragain]

I'm side-stepping a bit here and focusing on the "socialism" part of those idiotic tweets.

This whole "OMG Dems are socialist!" thing is exhausting. Government assistance to the needy and government economic stimulus measures aren't the opposite of capitalism. They're the opposite of libertarianism.

Capitalist governments, socialist governments, and everyone in between has programs that help the needy and have economic stimulus initiatives. Because doing those things is neither capitalist nor socialist. It's called responsible governing.

I'm just going to keep throwing these definitions out until they finally sink in:

Capitalism: an economy where people are employed to produce goods, services, knowledge, etc. which are then the property of the employer. That's it. That's literally all it means.

Marxism: A political philosophy that posits that all forms of oppression are ultimately the result of economic inequality- specifically between the Proletariat (workers who own nothing and sell their labor) and...well literally everyone else. He was less clear about the "everyone else" except that they were the ones who owned land, farms, etc.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are either owned by the government or collectively owned by the workers. This was seen as a potential solve for the problems Marx fixated on. That's it. That's literally that it means.

If people would spend a fraction of the time they spend blindly consuming politically motivated misinformation and fear mongering about socialism actually learning about it...this country wouldn't be so screwed up.

Congress has an approval rating that drifts in the high teens to low twenty percentile approval rating. People aren't stupid, you are.

Imagine running a business and your company slogan was "20% of our customers approve of our product!".

American Airlines "Our flights reach their destination 20% of the time!"

[Methais]

I'm side-stepping a bit here and focusing on the "socialism" part of those idiotic tweets.

This whole "OMG Dems are socialist!" thing is exhausting. Government assistance to the needy and government economic stimulus measures aren't the opposite of capitalism. They're the opposite of libertarianism.

Capitalist governments, socialist governments, and everyone in between has programs that help the needy and have economic stimulus initiatives. Because doing those things is neither capitalist nor socialist. It's called responsible governing.

I'm just going to keep throwing these definitions out until they finally sink in:

Capitalism: an economy where people are employed to produce goods, services, knowledge, etc. which are then the property of the employer. That's it. That's literally all it means.

Marxism: A political philosophy that posits that all forms of oppression are ultimately the result of economic inequality- specifically between the Proletariat (workers who own nothing and sell their labor) and...well literally everyone else. He was less clear about the "everyone else" except that they were the ones who owned land, farms, etc.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are either owned by the government or collectively owned by the workers. This was seen as a potential solve for the problems Marx fixated on. That's it. That's literally that it means.

If people would spend a fraction of the time they spend blindly consuming politically motivated misinformation and fear mongering about socialism actually learning about it...this country wouldn't be so screwed up.

Shut up Andraste.

[Parkbandit]

Shut up Andraste.

She has no idea who Andraste is.. so obviously she can't be Andraste.

UNLESS YOU THINK SHE'S LYING AGAIN!!!!

[caelric]

She has no idea who Andraste is.. so obviously she can't be Andraste.

UNLESS YOU THINK SHE'S LYING AGAIN!!!!

Parkbandit=Methais=caelric

So let's all stop talking to ourselves...

[Parkbandit]

Parkbandit=Methais=caelric

So let's all stop talking to ourselves...

You first.

I mean me...

[Shaps]

I'm side-stepping a bit here and focusing on the "socialism" part of those idiotic tweets.

This whole "OMG Dems are socialist!" thing is exhausting. Government assistance to the needy and government economic stimulus measures aren't the opposite of capitalism. They're the opposite of libertarianism.

Capitalist governments, socialist governments, and everyone in between has programs that help the needy and have economic stimulus initiatives. Because doing those things is neither capitalist nor socialist. It's called responsible governing.

I'm just going to keep throwing these definitions out until they finally sink in:

Capitalism: an economy where people are employed to produce goods, services, knowledge, etc. which are then the property of the employer. That's it. That's literally all it means.

Marxism: A political philosophy that posits that all forms of oppression are ultimately the result of economic inequality- specifically between the Proletariat (workers who own nothing and sell their labor) and...well literally everyone else. He was less clear about the "everyone else" except that they were the ones who owned land, farms, etc.

Socialism: an economy where the means of production are either owned by the government or collectively owned by the workers. This was seen as a potential solve for the problems Marx fixated on. That's it. That's literally that it means.

If people would spend a fraction of the time they spend blindly consuming politically motivated misinformation and fear mongering about socialism actually learning about it...this country wouldn't be so screwed up.

Sadly, thinking such as you just expressed is why Nations collapse. Your "ideals" are just that, ideals. They, and you, neglect the human element inserted into those "ideals". Marxism, Socialism, Communism, etc. all have one core tenet to them which you seem to avoid, that a "governmental entity" either owns, directs, or is responsible for you.

Yes, we have government as we as people have chosen to live peacefully (or some semblance of it) together, so we have some rules and guidelines. Laws are designed to protect YOUR right to live how you wish. They should not be designed so you have to live as THEY want you to.

If you're willing to give up your personal freedoms, or believe another system is better.. then move. I'm not being sarcastic. There are plenty of places with the laws and systems you seem to espouse. Just move then. Easy as pie. Instead, you, under the guise of "caring" and people like you will give away your rights and wake up one day going "but, but, but, how did this happen" in your own country. Your "caring", "understanding", and "compassion" is what's utilized by those in power to manipulate you into submission.

Of course, you won't see it. You'll say I'm wrong. You'll say I'm some right leaning Trump supporter. You'll say whatever you have to, to convince yourself you're right. And people like you, are why Nations fall.

You should check out some of the thoughts of Walter Williams. He sadly just passed away. He's a (and I know this is going to shock you) - a person of color who was immensely successful in our "racist nation" who discusses such theories as you propose and why they don't work - based on the human condition. Of course you'd probably call him an "Uncle Tom" or some such, but that doesn't dispute his intellect, logic, and understanding of the sad theories that you, and those like you, support.

Sad seeing people just relinquish their freedoms without even knowing it like you are.

Edit: And when you make your counter arguments, please avoid blending personal behavior and altruism with systems of government. To be caring, understanding, and compassionate are all noble qualities. That should be espoused in our daily lives and with those we interact. Systems of government which rise under such auspices have never worked, because of the introduction of the human element and eventual subjugation of others by the very few in power. Your feelings are used as a control mechanism when incorporated in governmental form.

[Latrinsorm]

It seems people are still missing the point of this thread.

Nobody, least of all in an echo chamber like this, is going to be convinced that the (what they call) socialism they've opposed for forty+ years actually works.

The proposal is that the people who haven't been opposing anything for forty+ years (what with not having been alive that along) have just seen that socialism work in America. Twice in the past twelve years, in fact.

So you should be asking yourself: if you were in their shoes, would you lend more credence to all the gesturing and all the hyperbole and all the same old tired arguments, or the real world experience of two moments of self-inflicted global crisis?

And you should be further asking yourself, what would that imply for all the other things the people you call socialists have been calling self-inflicted crises (for example climate change) that you've responded to with similar gesturing and hyperbole and old tired arguments?

.

One more reminder:

In 2004, voters aged 18-29 went 54-45 D, and were 17% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 30-49 went 53-45 D, and were 32% of the vote.

In 2004, voters aged 30-44 went 53-46 R, and were 29% of the vote.
In 2020, voters aged 50-64 went 52-47 R, and were 30% of the vote.

[Neveragain]

I don't think you know what "echo chamber" means.

[Methais]

I don't think you know what "echo chamber" means.

Latrin doesn't understand most things in general if it isn't in spreadsheet format.