Socialism for Dummies

[Johnfromokc]

For all my conservobot forum friends

 

[Stone]

Those are elements of socialism.


Aren't you the guy that posts we shouldn't keep doing what fails?

 

[banned]

Socialism is a thing from the past....it proofed itself wrong.
Start living in the future and not what some countries tried 30 years ago.

 

[Johnfromokc]

Those are elements of socialism.


Aren't you the guy that posts we shouldn't keep doing what fails?

You keep cashing that social Security check and using Medicare don't you Stone? That's working quite well I'd say.

 

[banned]

LOL...here in TX we say "oops"....

 

[Stone]

You keep cashing that social Security check and using Medicare don't you Stone? That's working quite well I'd say.

The checks keep coming at the present and Medicare is now covering a large percentage of my medical.
But the system is failing as SS is projected to run into financial shortfalls in the future.

That is projected failure.
And SS has been shored up in the past.

And you do argue to not keep repeating what fails .....oooops! :24:

 

[Johnfromokc]

The checks keep coming at the present and Medicare is now covering a large percentage of my medical.
But the system is failing as SS is projected to run into financial shortfalls in the future.

That is projected failure.
And SS has been shored up in the past.

And you do argue to not keep repeating what fails .....oooops! :24:

SS & MC are not failing Stone. But you really should not be hypocritical - why don't you have a 100% private retirement? Why don't you have your own health insurance? Why didn't Capitalism work for you?

 

[Stone]

SS & MC are not failing Stone. But you really should not be hypocritical - why don't you have a 100% private retirement? Why don't you have your own health insurance? Why didn't Capitalism work for you?

SS & MC are not failing Stone.

You seem to get away with a lot of bull shit on this forum and make claims that don't jibe with reality.

This is not late breaking news:
http://money.usnews.com/money/retir...uritys-underfunding-means-for-your-retirement

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
excerpt:

cial Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years.

The future of SS is dependent upon an economic turnaround.
With potential conflicts with Iran and the resulting projected increase in oil prices, you can wad up the current CBO projection of slow economic growth, as another recession is likely.

Medicare's funding ailments are expected to occur even sooner than Social Security's. Projected annual assets for the hospital insurance portion of Medicare are expected to exceed expenditures by 2012. The hospital insurance trust fund is expected to be exhausted by 2017, two years earlier than projected in last year's report. Medicare Part B, which covers doctors' bills and other outpatient expenses, and Part D prescription drug coverage are more adequately financed in the short term, but increases in healthcare costs over the long term will average 6.4 percent annually and require increases in enrollee premiums and general revenue funding.

But you really should not be hypocritical - why don't you have a 100% private retirement?

Lame ass argument that's irrelevant to the discussion.
Anyway, the position I take on SS and Medicare doesn't increase my benefits....so there's nothing hypocritical about pointing out reality.

And of note, since my early twenties, I did plan on the failure of SS being a possibility and planned for my retirement future.
The coverage is a plus at this time, but it's neither critical for my survival nor seen as sustainable in my future without some extraordinary modification.

Why don't you have your own health insurance?

I went through some experimental medical treatments.
I ended private insurance in 1996 because it became an issue of almost any medical problem becoming an existing condition from the treatments.
But you seem to forget....my posts don't relate to the support of the existing mess of a health care system......I'm pointing out why your solutions make things worse for society.

Why didn't Capitalism work for you?

What makes you think I haven't been successful?

 

[banned]

With so many people hungry and poor it is clear that we are on the wrong track and you don’t need a PHD to figure that out.
Smart people (Democrats) and also some (Rich) people do know that in the long run it will destroy a Nation.
They know that pooping in your own nest won’t work and in the end you cannot under estimate the intelligence of the power of people.
History has proven that over and over again.
Without a clear policy from Republicans how to resolve that fair sharing idea than they are doomed to disappear I am afraid as I do believe in intelligence.

 

[Stone]

With so many people hungry and poor it is clear that we are on the wrong track and you don’t need a PHD to figure that out.
Smart people (Democrats) and also some (Rich) people do know that in the long run it will destroy a Nation.
They know that pooping in your own nest won’t work and in the end you cannot under estimate the intelligence of the power of people.
History has proven that over and over again.
Without a clear policy from Republicans how to resolve that fair sharing idea than they are doomed to disappear I am afraid as I do believe in intelligence.

With so many people hungry and poor it is clear that we are on the wrong track and you don’t need a PHD to figure that out.

Indeed.
But our economic system is really an inefficient hybrid of Capitalism and Socialism with a lot of corruption thrown in.
Expelling either economic system ignores the traits of man that corrupt both.

Smart people (Democrats)

:tooth

Smart people (Democrats) and also some (Rich) people do know that in the long run it will destroy a Nation.

Actually, a true capitalist knows that destroying the consumer base also is destructive.
I think what has occurred is what Nader called 'Corporate Socialism'.
The shift from theory to execution that has been influenced by greed and corruption.
This was obviously endemic under the Bush administration, but has probably always existed to some degree.

Nader has some good observations here:
http://www.essential.org/features/corporatesocialism.html

fair sharing idea

Once you understand this old saying, you'll understand why that goal is difficult to achieve.

" What's you's is mine, what's mine's me own'
It's a common human trait.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You seem to get away with a lot of bull shit on this forum and make claims that don't jibe with reality.

Making claims that don't jibe with reality? You mean like you being a social program grubbing hypocritical right winger? I just don't put up with your bullshit Stone. Unfortunately for you, this forum is not modertaed by a bunch of right wing asshats that will join with you and attack anyone who is not a conservobot myrmidon.

This is not late breaking news:
http://money.usnews.com/money/retir...uritys-underfunding-means-for-your-retirement

http://www.ssa.gov/oact/TRSUM/index.html
excerpt:

The future of SS is dependent upon an economic turnaround.
With potential conflicts with Iran and the resulting projected increase in oil prices, you can wad up the current CBO projection of slow economic growth, as another recession is likely.

SS can be fixed easily by requiring those earning over $105,000 to actually pay SS tax on the amount over that AGI.

Medicare can be easily funded by taxing those in the top 1% to pay for the wars they are profiting from instead of borrowing money to fund them and depending on economic growth.

And as to economic growth - you can only feed so many cows on an acre of pasture. And there's a limited number of acres on planet Earth, so economic growth cannot be infinitely sustained. There is no such thing as sustainable growth with limited capacity.

Lame ass argument that's irrelevant to the discussion.

Thats all you have for an argument is idiotic statements like this.

Anyway, the position I take on SS and Medicare doesn't increase my benefits....so there's nothing hypocritical about pointing out reality.

You make absolutely no sense here.

And of note, since my early twenties, I did plan on the failure of SS being a possibility and planned for my retirement future.

Really? What percent of your income is SS?

The coverage is a plus at this time, but it's neither critical for my survival nor seen as sustainable in my future without some extraordinary modification.

And how much money would be left in your bank account if you did not have this socialist Medicare covering your bills?

I went through some experimental medical treatments.

Those treatments, and the research funding that ultimately led to them were probably funded with taxes. Good for you. I hope they were successful.

I ended private insurance in 1996 because it became an issue of almost any medical problem becoming an existing condition from the treatments.
But you seem to forget....my posts don't relate to the support of the existing mess of a health care system......I'm pointing out why your solutions make things worse for society.

How can you know my ideas won't work? How can you explain why the basis for my ideas are working in Europe and Australia?

What makes you think I haven't been successful?

Intuition. Truly successful people readily acknowledge how American infrastructure facilitated their success and understand that those who benefit the most must pay back the most. You seem to lack that quality as best as I can tell.

 

[Stone]

Making claims that don't jibe with reality? You mean like you being a social program grubbing hypocritical right winger? I just don't put up with your bullshit Stone. Unfortunately for you, this forum is not modertaed by a bunch of right wing asshats that will join with you and attack anyone who is not a conservobot myrmidon.



SS can be fixed easily by requiring those earning over $105,000 to actually pay SS tax on the amount over that AGI.

Medicare can be easily funded by taxing those in the top 1% to pay for the wars they are profiting from instead of borrowing money to fund them and depending on economic growth.

And as to economic growth - you can only feed so many cows on an acre of pasture. And there's a limited number of acres on planet Earth, so economic growth cannot be infinitely sustained. There is no such thing as sustainable growth with limited capacity.




Thats all you have for an argument is idiotic statements like this.



You make absolutely no sense here.




Really? What percent of your income is SS?



And how much money would be left in your bank account if you did not have this socialist Medicare covering your bills?



Those treatments, and the research funding that ultimately led to them were probably funded with taxes. Good for you. I hope they were successful.



How can you know my ideas won't work? How can you explain why the basis for my ideas are working in Europe and Australia?



Intuition. Truly successful people readily acknowledge how American infrastructure facilitated their success and understand that those who benefit the most must pay back the most. You seem to lack that quality as best as I can tell.

Making claims that don't jibe with reality? You mean like you being a social program grubbing hypocritical right winger?

Yep......the only thing you seem to have a grasp on is yourself ( :tooth ) and the less I know about it the better ...

I just don't put up with your bullshit Stone.

The ad hominem attacks you make is what you mean.

Unfortunately for you, this forum is not modertaed by a bunch of right wing asshats that will join with you and attack anyone who is not a conservobot myrmidon.

Thinking of ways to kick me out of this forum, already?
I am shocked, just shocked I tell you

SS can be fixed easily by requiring those earning over $105,000 to actually pay SS tax on the amount over that AGI.

So......arguments about only increasing taxation on those making more than a million$ a year was a bullshit lie?

Interesting.

Medicare can be easily funded by taxing those in the top 1%.......

Sounds like much of the socialist theory you claim not to present.

those earning over $105,000...
...those in the top 1%........

Just pointing out that earning 105,000 doesn't hold a 1% position.
It does look like tax creep will dip into the middle class, eventually.

to pay for the wars they are profiting from instead of borrowing money to fund them and depending on economic growth.

Looks like your socialist comrades are almost as interested in starting wars in the middle east as the previous neocons in power.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/...tary-exercises_n_1183952.html?ref=mostpopular
How do you rationalize that?

Do you think military action wouldn't impact our economy negatively because there is a Democrat President rather than a Republican?

And as to economic growth - you can only feed so many cows on an acre of pasture. And there's a limited number of acres on planet Earth, so economic growth cannot be infinitely sustained. There is no such thing as sustainable growth with limited capacity.

Indeed.
So?
How does this impact the US at a time of economic instability?
Are you claiming the majority of the population is destined to become 'deadwood' and that socialism is the solution?
How is that a lasting solution if you project an ever increasing economic load of non-production?
That is your logic.
Please explain the practically of turning a society into deadwood or even the concept of productive deadwood?
I think you post with a lot of non sequiturs.....but go ahead and explain.

Thats all you have for an argument is idiotic statements like this.

Your inability to comprehend the written word is irrelevant to my post.

Really? What percent of your income is SS?

Less than !%
So you see, I'm not arguing for greater benefits for myself as you tried to infer.
I planned my retirement.
And as my income comes from dividends and interest ( not much, obviously ) I'm not going to be taxed on increases on earned income. So even increasing taxes on those making less than a million$ a year ( which flies in the face of the current tax arguments ) I'm not affected there, either.

But I image your hopes and dreams in retirement are based on how big your SS check turns out when you retire, and I do remember you boasting of a big income.
You have a lot to lose if SS fails.
Me.....not much. I'm of the few that save for the future.
However, I don't want to see the economy fail. I do have an interest in it's success.

And how much money would be left in your bank account if you did not have this socialist Medicare covering your bills?

I'd be less about $18K which I could have paid if MC wasn't an option.
If a particular event had occurred 6 months earlier, I would have paid the whole amount.
That was my situation.
But in this forum, I address the nation's condition and it's considerably more complex.
My net worth is none of your business in these debates unless I make it so.
Same with you.

Those treatments, and the research funding that ultimately led to them were probably funded with taxes. Good for you. I hope they were successful.

They were for the most part successful. The FDA eventually outlawed the trials.
EPD is legal everywhere but in the US where is considered a controlled substance even though there is nothing deleterious or even addictive.
Likely an issue of big pharma lobbying the FDA to protect antihistamine profits.
And the trials weren't government funded.
It was private pay and it was reported no insurance companies in Ohio wrote coverage for EPD.
And it wasn't really research oriented on the development side. The process has existed in England since 1969.
It was technically experimental under FDA guidelines to mainstream the process into conventional medicine.
That didn't happen. But LDA is available, just not as effective.

Intuition. Truly successful people readily acknowledge how American infrastructure facilitated their success and understand that those who benefit the most must pay back the most.

And yet, I agree the more successful the individual, the greater his/her responsibility to support and promote the system.
But as pointed out before, your position is actually one of survival rather than progress. And you weight heavily enough on separation of wealth so as to be a negative on progress . If economic progress is a goal that satifyies survival, your positions of socialism regardless of cost/success analysis puts you in the position of averaging wealth to it's lowest demominator...........the introduction of more and more of the lower middle class into poverty.

You seem to lack that quality as best as I can tell.

That I don't brag on my successes and claim all can accomplish the same...... but focus to topic?
Looks like you're in for some frustration.

 

[Johnfromokc]

We're back to ground zero Stone. Full circle. You offer no solutions. Corruption is the cause of our problems you say? Fine. What do you propose we do about it - other than retyping the word "Socialism" over and over and over again.

That reminds me of this pic:

As banned already pointed out, the wealth to rebuild the middle class already exists - but the top 1% that controls it wants to hoard it. And you - who clearly is not among the top 1%, insist on defending them - even though you have said they should pay more on the one hand, while calling it Socialism on the other - kind of convoluted thinking at best and perhaps a bit schizophrenic.

As for me, I'll continue to call for a living wage laws, strong labor laws, universal health care, strong regulation of the banking, investment and fianacial industries, and reasonable safety and environmental regulation on business.

And I predict you will continue your circular arguments ad infinitum. :willy_nilly:


.....

 

[banned]

For some reason people seem to think that living wage or any welfare system creates "BUMS".After having experienced living in 3 countries and not just for a few day's or only reading about it.No realy living and working there.
Believe me there will allways be bums/scums/professional under achievers or those who want to rip or live of any system.This is how we are as humans.Some good some bad.I do believe in the good of people far more than the other way and you will never exclude this small and tiny group of our society.They will always be there no matter what and just accept the fact that those are a price we have to pay and work for in order to give us all the luxery we so badly want.Create a society that people do LIKE to work and believe that you can NOT create bums.Have people choose if they want to work or not and you will be surpised by how many they will come and choose to work hard as they do like the rewards for it.(money)A motivated work force has a strong effect on economy.A not motivated workforce will make you loose your mind.I dont mind to pay for a few bums just a little and not to make em die in order to get the mayority some social welfare they need to get motivated.

 

[Stone]

We're back to ground zero Stone. Full circle. You offer no solutions. Corruption is the cause of our problems you say? Fine. What do you propose we do about it - other than retyping the word "Socialism" over and over and over again.

That reminds me of this pic:

As banned already pointed out, the wealth to rebuild the middle class already exists - but the top 1% that controls it wants to hoard it. And you - who clearly is not among the top 1%, insist on defending them - even though you have said they should pay more on the one hand, while calling it Socialism on the other - kind of convoluted thinking at best and perhaps a bit schizophrenic.

As for me, I'll continue to call for a living wage laws, strong labor laws, universal health care, strong regulation of the banking, investment and fianacial industries, and reasonable safety and environmental regulation on business.

And I predict you will continue your circular arguments ad infinitum. :willy_nilly:


.....

We're back to ground zero Stone. Full circle.

Indeed.
I don't think you'll ever move into the realm of solutions other than instituting a different socio-economic system.
You completely ignore the affordability of those social programs in an environment that doesn't support their success.
Basically, you are promoting 'pie in the sky'........some thing for everyone without regard of the means versus outcome.

Corruption is the cause of our problems you say? Fine.

Well....your arguments in the past certainly don't lead one to think that's your position.
Are you changing your position?

What do you propose we do about it - other than retyping the word "Socialism" over and over and over again.

Just pointing out that using the term 'socialism' has been your argument for social/economic correction.
And I keep pointing out affordability is currently an issue of your position.

the wealth to rebuild the middle class already exists

And I have pointed out that if you confiscate every last cent of those on the Forbes 400.....the very wealthy.....it's not enough to solve the Federal and State debts and obligations within even one fiscal year let alone the coverage of Universal Health Care and a guaranteed living wage.
The Federal and State governments simply have acquired enough debt and unfunded obligations that they appear to overwhelm the economy.

Does your argument include defaulting on those debts and obligations?

As banned already pointed out

He also pointed out he didn't know where it would come from.

I don't either.
Perhaps you need to add a little honesty of your own in these discussions.

And you - who clearly is not among the top 1%, insist on defending them - even though you have said they should pay more on the one hand, while calling it Socialism on the other - kind of convoluted thinking at best and perhaps a bit schizophrenic.

Non sequitur.
( meaning you're ate up with the dumb ass )
:tooth
My ad hominems are better than yours.

I'll continue to call for a living wage laws....

You are a hard liner, I wouldn't expect anything less.

As for me, I'll continue to call for ....... universal health care

You are a hard line socialist, I doubt logic could change your mind.

:willy_nilly:

I see frustration in your arguments already


And I notice you seldom respond to the questions I ask of you.

 

[banned]

I may have said I don't know were it has to come from but also said :"Its hard to get blood out of a stone".Does that not make the direction clear?
Over 50 % is stone dead bloody poor.Find a way guys.

 

[Minor Axis]

We're back to ground zero Stone. Full circle. You offer no solutions. Corruption is the cause of our problems you say? Fine. What do you propose we do about it - other than retyping the word "Socialism" over and over and over again.

That reminds me of this pic:

As banned already pointed out, the wealth to rebuild the middle class already exists - but the top 1% that controls it wants to hoard it. And you - who clearly is not among the top 1%, insist on defending them - even though you have said they should pay more on the one hand, while calling it Socialism on the other - kind of convoluted thinking at best and perhaps a bit schizophrenic.

As for me, I'll continue to call for a living wage laws, strong labor laws, universal health care, strong regulation of the banking, investment and fianacial industries, and reasonable safety and environmental regulation on business.

And I predict you will continue your circular arguments ad infinitum. :willy_nilly:


.....

I like how you think.

 

[Johnfromokc]

You are a hard liner, I wouldn't expect anything less.

You are a hard line socialist, I doubt logic could change your mind.

Round and round and round you go.

And I notice you seldom respond to the questions I ask of you.

You never ask anything relevant because you don't pay attention very well. Either that or you just enjoy trying to frustrate people with continious repetition of nothingness. Either way the result is the same.

 

[banned]

Think this might be interesting for the both of you to read.(written by an American)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/03/magazine/03european-t.html?pagewanted=all

 

[Stone]

Round and round and round you go.



You never ask anything relevant because you don't pay attention very well. Either that or you just enjoy trying to frustrate people with continious repetition of nothingness. Either way the result is the same.

Nothing there this time, either.
Just the ad hominem excuse to avoid defending your position.
And mine are better than yours