You are not logged in. Please register or login.
- Topics: Active | Unanswered
Re: US Politics Thread
Socialism cannot exist under a democracy. Say Bernie gets his way, it would tank the economy for at least four years, I mean total disaster with skyrocketing unemployment, high taxes, etc. And four years is being generous that you could see even the slightest bit of positivity, where crap is a little less crappish... The American people would not stand for it and vote every socialist out. The left would then start hyping getting rid of the EC, abolishing rights, packing the supreme court, rewriting the constitution. Socialism can only exist under a dictatorship.
Re: US Politics Thread
Socialism cannot exist under a democracy. Say Bernie gets his way, it would tank the economy for at least four years, I mean total disaster with skyrocketing unemployment, high taxes, etc. And four years is being generous that you could see even the slightest bit of positivity, where crap is a little less crappish... The American people would not stand for it and vote every socialist out. The left would then start hyping getting rid of the EC, abolishing rights, packing the supreme court, rewriting the constitution. Socialism can only exist under a dictatorship.
This is strange talk. ^^^ Socialism can only exist under a dictatorship? Huh?
Our country has quite a bit of socialism already: Medicare, Medicaid, VA healthcare, public schools, social security, libraries, public transportation, parks, firefighters, the police....on and on. That's before we even get to corporate socialism (the kind Republicans never want to talk about.) Let's not also forget that it was socialism that bailed out capitalism when Wall Street was imploding about a decade ago. Tax payers picked up the tab and kept these giant corporations afloat.
I'd also argue that most Americans aren't very good at basic math. They scoff at "high" tax rates, but are buried under student loan debt, credit card debt, medical bills, childcare etc and have very little hope of retiring. But sure, your tax rate is 25% so you're "free"...congrats.
Re: US Politics Thread
I don't know if I should laugh or cry at the deficit now. We're heading towards 1 Trillion per year. To put it in perspective, when the great recession hit we were at approximately 1.3 Trillion per year. I've asked this before, but what are we going to do when our next recession comes? (and it's coming, probably sooner than most think, see my next point below.) When that happens, we won't have any of our usual moves, and the national deficit will explode when revenues shrink up. All the fiscal conservatives? Tea Party Types? The "We can't afford it" crowd? Crickets...
We've recently got the Fed cutting rates again, which is a huge red flag to me. Very strange. There is no reason to do that, unless our economy needs a bump. Right now the economy is supposed to be doing great, so why the cut? In this case it's to act as a counter weight to Trump's stupid trade war with China. Brilliant. Let's paint ourselves into a corner a little bit more.
But hey, the wealthy and corporations got their tax cuts. So who cares about the books? We should have been RAISING taxes the last several years to pay down debt, not lowering taxes. This is sheer insanity in my opinion.
Re: US Politics Thread
I still like pay for play taxes, like a junk food tax, corporate internet sales tax (Amazon tax) and cutting a bunch of loopholes and corporate well fare. Medicare drug prices have to be negotiated. And raise the age of ss for wealthy Americans. Matter of fact, transition ss from a pension to an insurance for Americans who don't need it.
- Randall Flagg
- Rep: 139
Re: US Politics Thread
I still like pay for play taxes, like a junk food tax, corporate internet sales tax (Amazon tax) and cutting a bunch of loopholes and corporate well fare. Medicare drug prices have to be negotiated. And raise the age of ss for wealthy Americans. Matter of fact, transition ss from a pension to an insurance for Americans who don't need it.
What kind of insurance? What’s the cutoff for “need”?
I’m generally against taking money from people who have paid into it. Does a multi-millionaire need it? Probably not. But what about someone who retires with 2 million in their 401k? If I live to 87, that’d give me 100k a year to live on. Is that a comfortable lifestyle? Sure, but what if I saved assuming I’d get that extra 30k a year to pay for vacations and trips I couldn’t take in my youth? To say nothing about inheritance.
I think I disagree with your original premise. I think socialism can only exist where it’s supported by the majority of the population. In a western world, if you’re of average intelligence and not traumatized by poor upbringing, your odds of success are much higher in what every western nation would call a capitalist society. True socialist nations like Venezuela and the USSR, only survived because the people accepted that suffering because it was superior to the quality of life before.
Either we become a quasi-Utopian society, or the victors of Armageddon start from scratch. Whether it be nuclear war, biological, or climate change, things as they are can’t continue.
Who in their right mind would choose to remain in a place like Sudan when the possibility of a life in a big 5 western nation is present? Especially if those nations are hesitant to keep out or remove those who illegally enter? At what point do these nations take the necessary steps to keep these people out, and could they survive the public unrest? Seriously, half this country is outraged that people with final deportation orders are forcibly removed. What happens when millions more decide to roll the dice and enter the US or EU en mass? What happens when far left groups commission charters that bring migrants to the shores of Norway or Canada? It’s happening in the Mediterranean now.
All of that is a way to say that the western standard of living and enlightenment values are under a direct threat. And half of the west is not only in denial about it, they celebrate and advocate for it.
That’s really what socialism is - the idea that people can be free of need. Marx makes that clear. It’s a very attractive idea, and people are vying for position to claim that they’re the most disenfranchised to get to the front of the line. Everyone wants to be part of the proletariat, and that’s how socialism happens and culture is destroyed.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:I still like pay for play taxes, like a junk food tax, corporate internet sales tax (Amazon tax) and cutting a bunch of loopholes and corporate well fare. Medicare drug prices have to be negotiated. And raise the age of ss for wealthy Americans. Matter of fact, transition ss from a pension to an insurance for Americans who don't need it.
What kind of insurance? What’s the cutoff for “need”?
I’m generally against taking money from people who have paid into it. Does a multi-millionaire need it? Probably not. But what about someone who retires with 2 million in their 401k? If I live to 87, that’d give me 100k a year to live on. Is that a comfortable lifestyle? Sure, but what if I saved assuming I’d get that extra 30k a year to pay for vacations and trips I couldn’t take in my youth? To say nothing about inheritance.
That's the thing, I don't know what the cut off would be, but I think there should be a space between middle class and wealthy where you could pull out, let's say $2,500 a year. Retirees travel around the US and they use their SS to fund those trips and it's good for the economy.
Re: US Politics Thread
Isn't there something Social Security is only taken on the first $200k of ones salary. As Randall said, it'd be a tough sell to tell people or draw a line in the sand "Sorry, you don't get any money".
Plus the elderly can have medical conditions, nursing homes expenses that can drain a families savings. I mean, maybe not billionaires but I think a mil or two could go to a nursing home in 10 years time.
Re: US Politics Thread
Isn't there something Social Security is only taken on the first $200k of ones salary. As Randall said, it'd be a tough sell to tell people or draw a line in the sand "Sorry, you don't get any money".
Plus the elderly can have medical conditions, nursing homes expenses that can drain a families savings. I mean, maybe not billionaires but I think a mil or two could go to a nursing home in 10 years time.
The whole point of an insurance would be to help people in those situations.
Re: US Politics Thread
PaSnow wrote:Isn't there something Social Security is only taken on the first $200k of ones salary. As Randall said, it'd be a tough sell to tell people or draw a line in the sand "Sorry, you don't get any money".
Plus the elderly can have medical conditions, nursing homes expenses that can drain a families savings. I mean, maybe not billionaires but I think a mil or two could go to a nursing home in 10 years time.
The whole point of an insurance would be to help people in those situations.
Isn't Medicare for Senior Citizens tho? And, if we "switch" SS to Insurance, how will many elderly live month to month (food, rent etc). I suppose you're saying for the richer elderly, but as Flagg points out, what's the cutoff.
I suppose a sliding scale would be needed, or a graduated scale like our income tax bracket. That'd be a tough sell lol. Who'd vote for a person who wants to have the government review your assets & net worth and tell you if you get SS. Definitely not anyone over 50. 
I think Paul Ryan did have a plan for massive overhaul in spending. I remember reading it in Bloomberg magazine, pretty sure it was before his 2012 VP nod. Cuts basically. I suppose there's a polarity in American views right now, in which direction we would like to go. Either the Bernie Sanders route, of make everything available to all and raise taxes, OR cut taxes drastically and cut spending down to limited government.
Why do you think Ryan left? Do you think it was $$ & taking a lobbying type job in private, or do you think he ran from Trump or did he have a tough re-election fight ahead last year?
I'd be curious to see a race of Ryan/Rand Paul against Bernie/Liz Warren as Pres & VP. Kindof an ideaological test of sorts.
Re: US Politics Thread
misterID wrote:PaSnow wrote:Isn't there something Social Security is only taken on the first $200k of ones salary. As Randall said, it'd be a tough sell to tell people or draw a line in the sand "Sorry, you don't get any money".
Plus the elderly can have medical conditions, nursing homes expenses that can drain a families savings. I mean, maybe not billionaires but I think a mil or two could go to a nursing home in 10 years time.
The whole point of an insurance would be to help people in those situations.
Isn't Medicare for Senior Citizens tho? And, if we "switch" SS to Insurance, how will many elderly live month to month (food, rent etc). I suppose you're saying for the richer elderly, but as Flagg points out, what's the cutoff.
I suppose a sliding scale would be needed, or a graduated scale like our income tax bracket. That'd be a tough sell lol. Who'd vote for a person who wants to have the government review your assets & net worth and tell you if you get SS. Definitely not anyone over 50.
I think Paul Ryan did have a plan for massive overhaul in spending. I remember reading it in Bloomberg magazine, pretty sure it was before his 2012 VP nod. Cuts basically. I suppose there's a polarity in American views right now, in which direction we would like to go. Either the Bernie Sanders route, of make everything available to all and raise taxes, OR cut taxes drastically and cut spending down to limited government.
Why do you think Ryan left? Do you think it was $$ & taking a lobbying type job in private, or do you think he ran from Trump or did he have a tough re-election fight ahead last year?
I'd be curious to see a race of Ryan/Rand Paul against Bernie/Liz Warren as Pres & VP. Kindof an ideaological test of sorts.
Well, you didn't read what I said. It would be switched for people who don't need it. The people who do need it would get a raise. Nursing homes take your SS check, not your Medicare. And even big earning seniors would still get a check, just a smaller one.
