Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
JFC. What are we arguing about again?
If tranny’s are the backbone of our nation or not.
Alright, it wasn't that funny but damn I laughed out loud at this.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.
You can still get tyranny of the majority in a Constitutional Republic. It just takes longer. The trend line, however, is the losers in our society wanting ever more from the winners. The big question is what can we do to lessen the number of losers.
For starters don’t spend or encourage spending gob smacking amounts of money on indoctrination that will only result in lifelong debt and reinforce class envy. Get a skill or education in a high demand field. Doctors, Engineers, Plumbers, Electricians are writing their own checks. Sales is also a huge winner, especially in technical and medical arenas. Degrees in advanced Social Justice Warriorism are worth less than toilet paper unless you stay in academics. Resist that for a change.
Then vote for a government that knows its place is out of your way. Elect people who understand the importance of limited government and genuinely believe in the ability of individuals to make life choices. Likewise, expect accountability in all directions.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Not really.
News flash. Those days are long gone.
Huh? The MI complex is long gone?
Nope. Just bottom line earnings. Commercial entities generate far more revenue and earnings.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Not really.
News flash. Those days are long gone.
Huh? The MI complex is long gone?
Nope. Just bottom line earnings. Commercial entities generate far more revenue and earnings.
Insert Jason Bateman trying to reply gif to this ridiculously stupid post.
Before yellow says something polite and diplomatic, let me interject to note that you do not understand at all the point he was making.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
In my own political-economy dictionary, state-owned means of production and central government planning for the economis and one party rule is communism.
Tax the mother loving shit out of me to pay for other people's problem is socialism. Still have markets, still have possibility of winners and losers, except the winners pay for the losers to be soft winners, so the winners aren't really winners anymore, just soft winners like the former real losers. I can still own property, but I won't be able to afford very much of it.
If anyone has a different set of definitions, IDRGAF; I'm using my own.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
Is Medicare democratic or no? It was passed by duly elected members of Congress and signed into law by Johnson who won in landslide election. Americans by a huge margin favor it. This a flaw after all with democracy- the electorate can vote them selves generous benefits based on someone else's tax dollars.
It's forced safety net a bunch of people voted for. Gotta separate the economis from the political, then put them back together.
There's no question that when you take from me to pay for the common good, it's socialistic in its nature. The question is always to what degree. We have socialist aspects to our society. No question.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
I am the last philosopher king, and I long ago decided to sit this one out. No such thing now.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
In my own political-economy dictionary, state-owned means of production and central government planning for the economis and one party rule is communism.
Tax the mother loving shit out of me to pay for other people's problem is socialism. Still have markets, still have possibility of winners and losers, except the winners pay for the losers to be soft winners, so the winners aren't really winners anymore, just soft winners like the former real losers. I can still own property, but I won't be able to afford very much of it.
If anyone has a different set of definitions, IDRGAF; I'm using my own.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.
You can still get tyranny of the majority in a Constitutional Republic. It just takes longer. The trend line, however, is the losers in our society wanting ever more from the winners. The big question is what can we do to lessen the number of losers.
For starters don’t spend or encourage spending gob smacking amounts of money on indoctrination that will only result in lifelong debt and reinforce class envy. Get a skill or education in a high demand field. Doctors, Engineers, Plumbers, Electricians are writing their own checks. Sales is also a huge winner, especially in technical and medical arenas. Degrees in advanced Social Justice Warriorism are worth less than toilet paper unless you stay in academics. Resist that for a change.
Then vote for a government that knows its place is out of your way. Elect people who understand the importance of limited government and genuinely believe in the ability of individuals to make life choices. Likewise, expect accountability in all directions.
Hunret precent!! I don't have "the knack" like you as we've discussed. Therefore I have to be a shitty pretend sales person.
We're talking about a new breed of socialists that want it all. And say so. And couch it in terms that useful idiots like hondo can run around melting down about
Who doesn't want free healthcare? Just give up your freedom
I don't live my life around health insurance and I won't give up my freedom to the same assholes that fucked it up
This has always been a long con and Reagan was right in the 60's when he said Medicare was the road to this.
Get healthcare and what's next? Everything, Because we need to modify your behavior to afford to cover you. By force if needed.
The reason socialism ends up with mass death is because you have to eliminate the people that don't go along. And it is a big number so you need a lot of camps and mass graves
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
That's the trouble with socialism-light, it always requires more government intervention & control as rent seeking replaces competition in a free market.
Healthcare is a perfect example. The government "fixed" our private market. Now the calls for single payer since there's a shrinking supply of larger and larger rent seeking corporations. Then, after single payer exists, there will be an oligopoly of rent seekers who give poor service while suckling at the public tit and we will have cries for state takeover just like PG&E. Then "real" socialismo where competition ceases to exist entirely and costs balloon while service and supply dwindle until the lights go off.
Comments
Then vote for a government that knows its place is out of your way. Elect people who understand the importance of limited government and genuinely believe in the ability of individuals to make life choices. Likewise, expect accountability in all directions.
Before yellow says something polite and diplomatic, let me interject to note that you do not understand at all the point he was making.
Yet
And I've paid in for 40 years
I'd still scrap it for REAL insurance reform
They're shmart!
Tax the mother loving shit out of me to pay for other people's problem is socialism. Still have markets, still have possibility of winners and losers, except the winners pay for the losers to be soft winners, so the winners aren't really winners anymore, just soft winners like the former real losers. I can still own property, but I won't be able to afford very much of it.
If anyone has a different set of definitions, IDRGAF; I'm using my own.
There's no question that when you take from me to pay for the common good, it's socialistic in its nature. The question is always to what degree. We have socialist aspects to our society. No question.
We're talking about a new breed of socialists that want it all. And say so. And couch it in terms that useful idiots like hondo can run around melting down about
Who doesn't want free healthcare? Just give up your freedom
I don't live my life around health insurance and I won't give up my freedom to the same assholes that fucked it up
This has always been a long con and Reagan was right in the 60's when he said Medicare was the road to this.
Get healthcare and what's next? Everything, Because we need to modify your behavior to afford to cover you. By force if needed.
The reason socialism ends up with mass death is because you have to eliminate the people that don't go along. And it is a big number so you need a lot of camps and mass graves
Pick up a fucking history book sometime
Healthcare is a perfect example. The government "fixed" our private market. Now the calls for single payer since there's a shrinking supply of larger and larger rent seeking corporations. Then, after single payer exists, there will be an oligopoly of rent seekers who give poor service while suckling at the public tit and we will have cries for state takeover just like PG&E. Then "real" socialismo where competition ceases to exist entirely and costs balloon while service and supply dwindle until the lights go off.