Socialism dream. Price controls, full government controls everything, no industry, and ruling class get to live the best.
Nevermind the average person can't eat these days.
Nevermind the average person can't eat these days.
Do you think the socialist Killary or the Bern watch Venezuela?
- Thread starter KNIGHTTIME^
- Start date
if the RNC were smart they need to blast ads all over South Florida showing what Leftists policies have done to South American nations
Of course...there is no answer to socialism. Never works. It helps the leeches of society until government runs out of borrowed money.
In general democrats can't answer questions without spinning their answers in circles. Back in the JFK days being a democrat was a nobel thing, now being a democrat stands for completely different things. Watch TV when they cover a Trump event, look at the protests and their actions, that is your current democrat party.
Socialist never pay attention to socialism's failures. They think they will be the ones to get it right.
So let me get this right, letting the banks run rough shot over this 'democracy' is the best solution. While I may not agree with most of Bernie Sanders policies, I agree 100% with him about the corruption of the big banks, with the governments complicity (both sides of the aisle). There is a reason he resonates so well with the electorate.
JFK was dishonest, self serving, and greedy. He stole the election from Nixon. He sacrificed mostly white American lives in Vietnam for political gain.
All forms of government (except for communism and tyranny) worked as long as its run by and benefits the right people.
All forms of government (except for communism and tyranny) worked as long as its run by and benefits the right people.
Says a guy that completely ignores the failures of Capitalism, while pushing the "socialism" label onto every dictatorship in the world, and also ignoring the entire rest of the developed world running social democracy.
Big banks are needed to compete with global finance. You want only community banks, then watch our economy suffer. Much of the damage done was because the government forced banks into bad loans with laws like the CRA among others. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae are quasi government agencies and they were more than happy doing interest only mortgages (dumb) and no documentation loans (dumb). Guess what the last part of the mortgage business that hasn't recovered completely. Yes FHA that is fully controlled by the government. Want to know the first that fully recovered, private banks that survived 2007-2010. The government got nearly 100% back from TARP plus they even made money on the equity stakes they took. Banks will always suffer when the economy takes that big of a nose dive. The money made by banks are interest income and fee income. When they aren't collecting fees and borrowers aren't repaying loans, they will fail. No amount of government will fix it. Look at the Bank of Greece and others.
We have been the lone super power with evil capitalism (well China is making a play again as a communist state). Let's switch it up and have it where everyone becomes a government leech. We are pretty close with 47% not paying anything to the federal taxes.
Oh boy - you've been drinking the mainstream media's koolaid. Listen to what gurus like Bill Gross, Stan Drukenmiller, Warrent Buffett and others have said about the derivatives exposure and unregulated counter party risk of the banks. Guess who gonna be left holding the bag when those blow up? Duetche Bank is already on the ropes with just bad debt, forget about derivatives ,and things are still papered over pretty good. Central bankers are TERRIFIED of the next global recession. Don't you ever wonder why?
Bernie is on to something with banking reform. That's why the bank sponsored PAC's pulled out all the stops to make sure he doesn't get elected. Pay me now, or pay a lot more later.
Actually picking on the banks is a populist message. The majority of people have no idea how banks even make money. The last thing you want is the banks in full government control. You see how well that is working for FHA and everything else the government touches. People like Bernie never had to make a budget, work, etc. They can walk around giving speeches talking about socialism utopia.
Unless there is outright fraud, we have no choice but to bail out banks. Unless we want to go the other route and start a debtors prison. Part of the problem was the government themselves. The CRA is instant losses the banks know they "have" to take.
Guess what with Dodd-Frank reform. It is near impossible to start a new bank. These mid size banks are the ones in the perfect spot. So all that regulation did nothing to spur growth of smaller banks. That is Bernie. Just kill every industry.
Please. Liberals have been screwing up capitalism for decades. Now you're trying to crow about the supposed failure of capitalism while hoping to redirect from the actual failures of socialism in every country that is not a lily-white small European country where everyone shares the same values. The people of Venezuela voted themselves into their predicament after the academic left in America created revolution through the education system. This was a perfect case study of the kind of democratic socialism the academic left wants to bring to this country.
You guys are hilarious. Plenty of negative examples can be provided in regards to capitalism or socialism. Both, can and will exist in this country. We're never going to be pure socialist because it would suck and the system will never be pure capitalism because it would suck.
It's awesome when you outright admit that liberals only care about white people socialism, like the ones in Europe that are catered to near homogenous populations like Sweden or Norway. A white people paradise, also the liberal socialist fantasyland. No minorities or outsiders to worry about! (Except now, where refugees are literally straining Scandinavian welfare to the brink).
When it comes to brown people socialism, such as the widespread leftism in South and Latin America, you're the first to decry it as being "3rd world dictatorship!". Despite the fact that the Brazilian left wing socialist regime was just ousted for basically destroying the economy under a Democracy.
Funny how the American left wing is so quick to praise people like Castro for "FREE HEALTH CARE!!" yet will turn on them as a "3rd world dictator" the minute that socialist utopia crumbles.
This is a fallacy. You'd be extremely hard pressed to find any country that actually regressed after opening markets and allowing capitalistic privatization to occur.
Every country that has opened their markets as seen a dramatic increase in wealth creation, prosperity, quality of living, and general well being. There's a reason that the Chinese communist part is struggling to maintain relevant- they've allowed the people a taste of capitalism and it's infinitely better than centrally planned economy.
Yes, capitalism has flaws as does any system, but there is simply no debate on a macro scale as to which overlying philosophy is better for wealth and development.
yeah they always tout the Nordic model but completely ignore the Demographics of the current United States. Demographically/ethnically Florida, Arizona, or California resemble Brazil more than Sweden.
I'd vote Bernie Sanders for king. Because as a Congressman, he cannot even stand up to the VA union when they protected public servants who commit criminal embezzlement. That's the thing, President Sanders would be able to do nothing. King Sanders would ... until, of course, the power corrupted even him.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...g_questions_about_socialism_in_venezuela.html
Bernie also apparently said in 2011 that the American Dream was more attainable in Venezuela
Or save Europe from extinction twice. That big old meany capitalism machine just makes people poor.
Be careful, there were a lot of former, fascist Europeans in that mix.
But yes, considering the per-capita income and energy consumption of the EU as a whole is not that far from the US, they don't have nearly as much to show for it.
In the strictest form of the word? Probably none. But there are countries that are pretty close to being entirely socialistic, and they're all totalitarian shitholes.
That's the point- Sanders wants to tilt the balance so far to the left that he'd completely destroy the system the made our economy the biggest and most resilient on earth.
Actually, we've been doing that quite well ourselves since 1990. It just has been pushed off the last 25 years.
But yes, Sanders is the new age Gen-Y/Millennial candidate that thinks we can remotely afford our current federal budget and taxation rate ... let alone think there's more to be found. I'm not against government solutions, I'm against one, big, large, central, powerful, federal government, especially since it presents a single place for everyone to lobby.
I mean ... why is it that Liberals think sending yet more money to the federal government -- the only one that can also declare war -- is a good idea?
The true, original, American Libertarian view is to stick with state and local governments that cannot, and have more direct accountability closer to home, and limit powers to the federal, such as protecting civil rights and, as you say, avoiding war.
There are even European examples of this too, as it's hardly an American-only idea.
I just don't understand why so many Liberals think such a single, centralized "Lobbyist and War Clearing House" is so desired. It's self-defeating!
Especially considering Fairfax overtook Westchester when it comes to wealth, and waste has skyrocketed, under the current administration ... with more Lobbyists than ever, and don't get me started on US funding of non-military NATO and other aspects.
But what do I know? I don't have the "moral authority" like a lot of Liberals claim.
Why do you proclaim those views to only be those of the liberal?The true, original, American Libertarian view is to stick with state and local governments that cannot, and have more direct accountability closer to home, and limit powers to the federal, such as protecting civil rights and, as you say, avoiding war.
There are even European examples of this too, as it's hardly an American-only idea.
I just don't understand why so many Liberals think such a single, centralized "Lobbyist and War Clearing House" is so desired. It's self-defeating!
Especially considering Fairfax overtook Westchester when it comes to wealth, and waste has skyrocketed, under the current administration ... with more Lobbyists than ever, and don't get me started on US funding of non-military NATO and other aspects.
But what do I know? I don't have the "moral authority" like a lot of Liberals claim.
Oh, I agree, there are many, alleged Conservatives that have them too. But to date, I've repeatedly postulated this question to Liberals, as most Conservatives don't openly advocate larger, federal government (even if some do privately, and against their true principles long lost), and I've yet to get a single answer. Although a few Liberals do admit, after further discussion, they aren't against making state governments larger instead of federal.
But, in my experience, there are also too many Liberals that don't understand state governments fund the overwhelming majority of education, law enforcement and medicaid either. Movies by Michael Moore have not helped the situation, which goes really south for them when they start to debate me, and we hit the President's OMB and various state equivalents.
E.g., the argument that cutting defense spending could make a dent in education is based on most Liberals not realizing the federal government only funds 1/8th of all education.
I still cannot believe how many educated, intelligent Liberals don't know that. It's quite an experience to see the average Liberal suddenly realize MSNBC, among others, has been prying on their ignorance of state and federal budgeting. They are left speechless, even after a few denials, then confounded by the fact that virtually all of their base and arguing for years has been based on that presumption.
And, again, that's just beyond just my continued argument that why do they continue to wish to send yet more money to a large, single, federal entity -- especially after the President has only proved a larger federal means even more lobbyists. In fact, have you ever met pissed off Democrats who voted for the President in 2008, but not in 2012, and absolutely despise being accused of not voting for the President in 2012 allegedly because of race?
If the media would stop asserting such things, and other non-sense, Trump would drop 10 points overnight. Until then, you've got a lot of pissed of Democrats as much as Republicans with the media, and that level of ignorance and arrogance, who literally are voting against the media. Even The Atlantic, one of the most objective, Liberal media outlets, have repeatedly tried to warn other Liberal media outlets that they are alienating and pushing too many people to Trump.
Liberals have lost their way, as much as Conservatives, possibly even more so. It's the first time we're starting to see more Americans scared of losing rights from the Liberals, as much as Conservatives. Unfortunately for the Conservatives, Trump isn't the answer ... he's just an option that's not part of the establishment. The Republican leadership who recognizes this will be better off in 2020, while the others who do not, will not.
Last edited:
It must be wonderful to pretend history never happened. It is as if we never lived the post WW2 era at all!!
Last edited:
Funny you mention that since your views basically assume that we're transported back to 1945 when the US was the only developed manufacturing power left standing after the war.
Your entire arguments depend on people choosing to believe that there is no such thing as China, Brazil, Mexico, or India in the 21st Century. It's amazing.
Interesting point.
How many of us would prefer to reverse the 1956 Suez Incident, and just stepped back, or going the other way, would have moved against the British during the 1953 Iranian Coup?
I mean ... we basically inherited the sole position in the western world of "World Police" after we crossed the British (and, correspondingly, French) in '56, forcing ourselves to maintain the EU's oil lifeline to the Middle East, as well as help keep the Soviets and, now, Russia in-line when it comes to their need for Natural Gas.
We don't need either, only they do ... something that I personally want to reverse. Trump's non-interference, reduce deployment (stop abusing our military) foreign policy -- at least what he claims, who knows if true -- is pulled indirectly from the Libertarian camp. It's scaring all our allies to death, but then again, what do you expect after this administration just gave them more money, but reneg'd on all missile defense deployments and ended freedom-of-navigation until both Japan and Vietnam directly threatened us?
I'm not voting Trump, but his non-interference policy does appeal to Libertarians and a lot of Republicans. I was quite impressed when he said "North Korea is China's problem." Told me in a moment that he understands it, totally. I.e., North Korea was always about keeping nukes out of Taiwan. If you don't understand that, you're totally ignorant of the whole situation ... but that's what the US media is all about, promoting geo-political ignorance.
We don't need either, only they do ... something that I personally want to reverse. Trump's non-interference, reduce deployment (stop abusing our military) foreign policy -- at least what he claims, who knows if true -- is pulled indirectly from the Libertarian camp. It's scaring all our allies to death, but then again, what do you expect after this administration just gave them more money, but reneg'd on all missile defense deployments and ended freedom-of-navigation until both Japan and Vietnam directly threatened us?
I'm not voting Trump, but his non-interference policy does appeal to Libertarians and a lot of Republicans. I was quite impressed when he said "North Korea is China's problem." Told me in a moment that he understands it, totally. I.e., North Korea was always about keeping nukes out of Taiwan. If you don't understand that, you're totally ignorant of the whole situation ... but that's what the US media is all about, promoting geo-political ignorance.
Actually, the State AGs "won" most of their case against the ACA in the SCOTUS. Or didn't you read the actual rulings? The ACA is also unsustainable, and everyone knows it.
I.e., the reason most of the State AGs sued, including Democratic Governors, was because the ACA push the costs on to the States to avoid the federal costs, the President citing the Interstate Commerce Clause. The SCOTUS smacked the administration on that one, including Liberal justices.
It's not only costing an arm'n a leg for the federal government, but every private insurance company is losing money. Those that could get out ... have now, or are trying. Those who cannot will get a federal bail out. I cannot believe Liberals say, "Oh, those big insurance companies should just eat it." Well, what do you not understand about sustainable? If they are only going to lose money, consistently and massively ... what do you think will happen? The magic unicorn will show up and give them money?
It's not only costing an arm'n a leg for the federal government, but every private insurance company is losing money. Those that could get out ... have now, or are trying. Those who cannot will get a federal bail out. I cannot believe Liberals say, "Oh, those big insurance companies should just eat it." Well, what do you not understand about sustainable? If they are only going to lose money, consistently and massively ... what do you think will happen? The magic unicorn will show up and give them money?
As far as "No Child Left Behind," I agree, it was a huge mistake (wife is an educator).
But, unfortunately, the Liberal media was too busy saying W. cut Education spending, when he increased federal far more than anyone before him. His wife is an educator. Same goes for AIDS and, more importantly, Hep-C funding, the latter which went ignored by the Clinton administration, even when it was become a serious issue by '98. But that's another story.
Had the Liberal media focused on the details, instead of pushing the same old BS that did not apply to W., it would be different.
Had the Liberal media focused on the details, instead of pushing the same old BS that did not apply to W., it would be different.
W. spent like a SOB, largely pork to get War votes, which severely pissed off us Libertarians.
In fact, that's where the original Tea Party movement started, the anti-W., anti-Congress pork-for-War pushback. But the current administration has bested W. And that's the problem. Too many people think, after Reagan, then Bush Sr., then Clinton (who benefited immensely from the revenue during the .COM boom) and then W. (who was left with the .COM bust, then stupidly didn't save during the housing boom), we can keep spending like we did during the Great Recession.
But this administration has only expanded spending, and government and, correspondingly, lobbying and lobbyists, including special interest. He has utterly disappointed most people who voted for him in '08, and even continued to vote again in '12, failing all three of his big three promises.
But this administration has only expanded spending, and government and, correspondingly, lobbying and lobbyists, including special interest. He has utterly disappointed most people who voted for him in '08, and even continued to vote again in '12, failing all three of his big three promises.
Last edited:
Have to agree. People forget the US' manufacturing base was without nearly as much global competition until the late '60s.
And we've assisted both China, directly, and India, indirectly. Heck, it took a little "civilian shoot'em up" in the very late '80s before we "woke up" to the fact that China is not our ally. Before then we were sharing advanced technology.
You railed on about liberals and big government, and I provided you 2 big government initiatives created by conservatives. In return you responded with drivel.
Big federal government. I asked, why to Liberals want to send more money to the federal government, the same, single one that can declare war? Also, if you bothered to read, I said W. started several initiatives, but the current administration expanded the spending into yet more areas.
In fact, that's why the Republican leadership is getting ousted! Republican voters are sick of it. Understand what I'm saying ... popular, Liberal media and thought. I'm a Libertarian and agree Republicans are out-of-control too. But the average Republican voter is tired of it, while the average Democratic voter is calling for more of it.
In fact, as I've long stated, one could argue W. and JFK are extremely similar. JFK just got shot.
Huh? The ACA was created by Conservatives? WTF?! Did you follow anything?
Huh? I agreed with with you, "No Child Left Behind" was W.'s creation. I also said the "Pork for War Votes" was also W.'s creation.
Just who are you arguing with? Certainly not me. You've named 1. I can name a few other things under W., even a couple from his father.
But have you looked at the actual budget? How much we're spending on all sort of things under Defense, but are not actually Defense? What we are actually "getting for our money," as taxpayers?
