What's The Difference Between A Socialist And A Democrat?

[Guest]

Well that's just about the way the conversation between Chris Matthews and Debbie Wassermann Schultz went on Matthews TV show the other day.
Chris Matthews had Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Democratic National Committee Leader as a guest.

Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wassermann Schultz to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Schultz's head exploded over this question as Matthews kept insisting that she explain the difference . All he got was well its Democrat against Republican

However given the hard pull to the left by liberals Matthews question had substance and as Bernie Sanders continues on his march to the White House
Hillary Clinton pulls harder and harder to the left. The multi-millionaire first woman to be elected continues the class war against the rich. She will continue and enlarge the income redistribution scheme of the Obama Administration as government continues to grow this economy. She will fix the income disparity between the CEO's and clerks in a company by applying some sort of parity scheme.

Doesn't this all sound like socialism to you?

[Guest]

Well that's just about the way the conversation between Chris Matthews and Debbie Wassermann Schultz went on Matthews TV show the other day.
Chris Matthews had Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Democratic National Committee Leader as a guest.

Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wassermann Schultz to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Schultz's head exploded over this question as Matthews kept insisting that she explain the difference . All he got was well its Democrat against Republican

However given the hard pull to the left by liberals Matthews question had substance and as Bernie Sanders continues on his march to the White House
Hillary Clinton pulls harder and harder to the left. The multi-millionaire first woman to be elected continues the class war against the rich. She will continue and enlarge the income redistribution scheme of the Obama Administration as government continues to grow this economy. She will fix the income disparity between the CEO's and clerks in a company by applying some sort of parity scheme.

Doesn't this all sound like socialism to you?

THAT is certainly the direction that the Democratic party has been sprinting to over the last few years.

Our current administration is bent on putting us on the same track as socialist Europe. His next Presidential proclamation is on environment


"On Monday, the Post has learned, the Obama administration plans to release the finalized “Clean Power Plan,” the president’s flagship policy to combat global warming. The plan is aimed at the electricity sector, which generates the largest single slice of U.S. greenhouse gas emissions — 31 percent of them.

The final rule, which officials say will be part of a major new climate push by the president, is likely to both thrill environmental groups and pique industry — it seeks to achieve even deeper cuts than the 2014 proposed plan, which itself was already controversial."

What you need to know about Obama (http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/08/01/what-you-need-to-know-about-obamas-biggest-global-warming-move-yet-the-clean-power-plan/)

"It’s important to note that most of these changes — more renewables, more natural gas, fewer coal-fired power plants — are happening anyway. The Clean Power Plan seeks to ride atop an energy sector trend that is already occurring, while also hastening it along."

[Guest]

TV residents love their socialized single-payer health care, commonly known as Medicare, as long as you keep the government's hand out of it.

[Guest]

Well that's just about the way the conversation between Chris Matthews and Debbie Wassermann Schultz went on Matthews TV show the other day.
Chris Matthews had Debbie Wassermann Schultz, Democratic National Committee Leader as a guest.

Chris Matthews asked Debbie Wassermann Schultz to explain the difference between a socialist and a Democrat. Schultz's head exploded over this question as Matthews kept insisting that she explain the difference . All he got was well its Democrat against Republican

However given the hard pull to the left by liberals Matthews question had substance and as Bernie Sanders continues on his march to the White House
Hillary Clinton pulls harder and harder to the left. The multi-millionaire first woman to be elected continues the class war against the rich. She will continue and enlarge the income redistribution scheme of the Obama Administration as government continues to grow this economy. She will fix the income disparity between the CEO's and clerks in a company by applying some sort of parity scheme.

Doesn't this all sound like socialism to you?

There is also concern WITHIN the Democratic party...

"Centrist Democrats were wiped out in the 2014 elections and in their absence emerged a resurgent liberal movement, embodied most recently by the surprisingly competitive presidential campaign of Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders.
But the suddenly ascendant left — its populist overtones becoming part of the mainstream Democratic pitch — is worrying Democrats who want to compete on Republican-leaning turf. The party lost every competitive gubernatorial and Senate race in the South last year. And Democrats didn’t fare much better in the heartland.


Read more: Red-state Democrats fret about leftward shift - Kyle Cheney and Rachana Pradhan - POLITICO (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/red-state-democrats-leftward-shift-120605.html#ixzz3hgbr52xI)

[Guest]

The difference between a socialist and a democrat is the socialist will admit that is what they are.

The democrat will dance around and make it sound like a lot of something else but never refer to it as socialism......you know same old political mumbo jumbo business as usual.

[Guest]

Well, at least under Hillary's "leadership", we will all equally poor. :1rotfl:

[Guest]

Perhaps the question could be, "What is the difference between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK?"

From a lot of posts on the forum, I would guess there is not too much difference.

[Guest]

Perhaps the question could be, "What is the difference between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK?"

From a lot of posts on the forum, I would guess there is not too much difference.

Or perhaps it should be "What is the difference between The Villages' liberals and and an Idiot".

[Guest]

That KKK comment wasn't me.

The Republicans treat Socialism as a swear word. Social Security, and Medicare are two socialist programs. I don't hear many people complaining about them here.

Single payer, Medicare for all, is the way to go. Cost of health care has gone through the roof. There was a number in the 90's that it cost the federal government 4 cents to process a claim, and 24 cents for an insurance company. I am sure that that gap is a lot closer now. You can open up state borders for health insurance companies that is not going to reduce premiums. They know what each other are going to charge. They prices will be so close you won't be able to tell the difference. Fixing prices is a strange way for Capitalism to work.

If the government can't process claims in an efficient manner, let the insurance companies process the claims, but will have accept the amount the federal government determines to be fair to process a claim. Who cares! Single payer will never happen. Insurance companies throw to much money at our elected officials. They are bought and paid for.

Is anyone out there going to try and sell that we are working on an equal playing field? Citizens United has guaranteed that the rich will never be the victim of the Democrats. Treating them as victims of anything is beyond the pale. It is not how much you make. It is how much you keep. Making the tax laws a lot fairer isn't an assault on the rich. It is common sense.

[Guest]

What is the difference between the Villages' liberals and an idiot? Villages' liberals have more money, and a fully functional brain in their head.

What is the difference between the Village Tea Party, and the KKK? In the serious department, that is over the top, and just not right. Nobody is as bad as the KKK. In the just kidding department, the KKK won't be the target of the IRS, if they apply for a 501(c)4 charitable political organization classification. I don't think the KKK has any need to place political ads on TV.

[Guest]

Perhaps the question could be, "What is the difference between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK?"

From a lot of posts on the forum, I would guess there is not too much difference.

Another testimony to the commitment to total and complete nonsense.

[Guest]

The difference between a socialist and a democrat is the socialist will admit that is what they are.

The democrat will dance around and make it sound like a lot of something else but never refer to it as socialism......you know same old political mumbo jumbo business as usual.

The essence of the difference ... well stated

[Guest]

But remember, kind readers, that it is extremely likely that the Democrat nominee will win the presidency in 2016.

[Guest]

But remember, kind readers, that it is extremely likely that the Democrat nominee will win the presidency in 2016.

Curious,,,,,you might be correct, but on what do you base your absolute ?

Polls reflect a very dynamic picture right now and it is early....really curious about how you came to this call.

Fact is there is no Republican candidate and the Democratic picture is getting fuzzy suddenly.

[Guest]

But remember, kind readers, that it is extremely likely that the Democrat nominee will win the presidency in 2016.

Progress is noted! The statement excludes that Clinton is the next POTUS.

When Biden throws his hat in the ring Clinton will fade even faster.

[Guest]

Many of the Republicans running for president don't have to worry about fading. You have to be in the picture before you can fade. The biggest joke going is the Republicans have a deep well qualified field. No, they just have a lot of people running.

Biden will not get one vote from the religious committee. His speech announcing throwing his hat into the ring will have them covering their ears. It will be one sentence, "I am running for president, because it is a big bleepin deal."

[Guest]

Curious,,,,,you might be correct, but on what do you base your absolute ?

Polls reflect a very dynamic picture right now and it is early....really curious about how you came to this call.

Fact is there is no Republican candidate and the Democratic picture is getting fuzzy suddenly.

I had said it was extremely likely that the Democrat nominee would win the presidency in 2016.

In what way is that an absolute? I came to this call by the demographics of both parties and how the Republicans seem to be trying to exclude any possible voters who might cross party lines.

[Guest]

Many of the Republicans running for president don't have to worry about fading. You have to be in the picture before you can fade. The biggest joke going is the Republicans have a deep well qualified field. No, they just have a lot of people running.

Biden will not get one vote from the religious committee. His speech announcing throwing his hat into the ring will have them covering their ears. It will be one sentence, "I am running for president, because it is a big bleepin deal."

You conveniently shifted the focus to republicans and forgot to mention Clinton fading when Biden enters the race!

[Guest]

TV residents love their socialized single-payer health care, commonly known as Medicare, as long as you keep the government's hand out of it.

Not all of us. Medicare is a perfect example of the gov messing up something that they stick their hands in. First you pay for it all your working life. Then you retire and they tell you that Medicare A, which you paid for is only good for hospitalization. Not doctor visits and not prescriptions. If you want anything more than hospitalization, you must pay an extra $100+ for Medicare B, more for "C" and if you want prescriptions Medicare part D, which costs even more. No thank you. I will keep my Blue Cross/Blue Shield. As far as I am concerned, I the gov ripped me off, and now they are going to take half a trillion bucks of Medicare funds that WE paid for and use it to subsidize those that don't contribute (Obamacare).

So, if you think socialized medicine is such a great idea, travel and live in a few other countries...I HAVE. You need to experience it before you can understand it. Don't let those lefty liberals con you into thinking the gov is going to take all your troubles away. It's just like drinking until you pass out. You feel good when you don't have to stress about something, but once you wake up, the troubles are still there. And the bill is much greater.

[Guest]

Or perhaps it should be "What is the difference between The Villages' liberals and and an Idiot".

:agree:

Or the difference between a liberal, outside troll and an idiot.

[Guest]

The difference between a socialist and a Democrat?

A Democrat is just a socialist with lipstick on.

[Guest]

I had said it was extremely likely that the Democrat nominee would win the presidency in 2016.

In what way is that an absolute? I came to this call by the demographics of both parties and how the Republicans seem to be trying to exclude any possible voters who might cross party lines.

Got it....

Your intent was not a simple political prediction this early on but a back door to go after the Republican party for what you perceive as a slight to blacks and hispanics.

Why not be up front......you do this quite a bit so might as well get all the preliminaries out of the way and get right to it.

And, I do apologize you were not that absolute. The idea of talking race and culture this early is quite something. I choose not to have that conversation.

The emphasis on race is not one that americans should be having. Some seem to look for reasons to bring it up.

It certainly might be a factor......I sure hope the racial attitude reflected in the lopsided voting in 2012 election does not repeat. THAT becomes a real concern for this country.

And before you say I am ignoring reality, I understand why you might say that, but the reality is different this year than in 2008 and 2012 both in demographic voting and in turnout.

I realize the country is more divided now than ever but I hope it has not become a white versus non white situation.

[Guest]

Wasser name is a perfect example to represent the Democrat party....ignorance of fact.
She/they get by using rhetoric, not real issues. What do they have to offer? Just fictitious accusations.

The GOP hates women because they don't want to subsidize birth control pills
They hate women because they won't let them kill unwanted babies
They are bigots because they believe in the Biblical marriage
They are racists because they don't agree with Obama's policies
They hate children because they don't want to give everyone free health care
They hate the poor because they won't increase taxes on the earners
They hate animals because they eat meat
They hate the environment because they use cars
etc. etc, etc

Funny but history tells a different story and liberals even attempt to rewrite that.

[Guest]

Just in case that instead of discussing race you might want a good analysis of the upcoming elections, this is from a Democrat who worries a bit.......and this little segment points to both the socialist claims and the race you fret over always...

"Democrats have an electoral advantage if they stay united and beat a path to the polls. But if polite prodding from the left in the primary turns to angry rhetoric, suddenly liberal ambivalence toward Clinton could shift to distaste or, just as bad, apathy. A liberal county here and another there with just enough of those alienated voters, and a state goes red. Then the White House does, too.

The biggest threat to Clinton losing her presidential bid isn't Republicans; it's Democrats.

But it is fallacy to believe that attacks, instead of debates, can do anything but undermine the chances of a party and its nominee. It would also be a mistake to push Clinton too far to the left with no way back. While Democrats have become more liberal, and Americans are more progressive generally on social issues, the country as a whole is still economically conservative."

Hillary Clinton's threat is Democrats | Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hillary-clinton-s-threat-is-democrats-1.10672170)

I thought it was interesting. Sorry it does not call anyone a racist or anything like that but it is a pretty good read.

Doubting you will read the entire article but at one point he mentions how a lack of a debate on the left might be of concern.

Hearing this morning that there is no plan at this time for a Democratic debate, even though besides Biden coming in to join the other two, now the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz is seriously joining the democratic fray

[Guest]

Well, at least under Hillary's "leadership", we will all equally poor. :1rotfl:

But, will we be speaking Russian, Greek or ebonics by the end of her term? :1rotfl:

[Guest]

That KKK comment wasn't me.

The Republicans treat Socialism as a swear word. Social Security, and Medicare are two socialist programs. I don't hear many people complaining about them here.

Single payer, Medicare for all, is the way to go. Cost of health care has gone through the roof. There was a number in the 90's that it cost the federal government 4 cents to process a claim, and 24 cents for an insurance company. I am sure that that gap is a lot closer now. You can open up state borders for health insurance companies that is not going to reduce premiums. They know what each other are going to charge. They prices will be so close you won't be able to tell the difference. Fixing prices is a strange way for Capitalism to work.

If the government can't process claims in an efficient manner, let the insurance companies process the claims, but will have accept the amount the federal government determines to be fair to process a claim. Who cares! Single payer will never happen. Insurance companies throw to much money at our elected officials. They are bought and paid for.

Is anyone out there going to try and sell that we are working on an equal playing field? Citizens United has guaranteed that the rich will never be the victim of the Democrats. Treating them as victims of anything is beyond the pale. It is not how much you make. It is how much you keep. Making the tax laws a lot fairer isn't an assault on the rich. It is common sense.

You have strayed quite far from the subject, but I will disagree with you.
Medicare and Social Security is a perfect example of gov mismanagement. If you don't agree, then you are ignorant of the facts.

As far as medicare is concerned, I believe there is another posting on here that puts it pretty well, if not simply.

Social Security? Really bad mishandling.

I don't know how you can even mention them as good examples of socialism.

[Guest]

Perhaps the question could be, "What is the difference between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK?"

From a lot of posts on the forum, I would guess there is not too much difference.

Good example of an uninformed liberal. You "guess" because you don't have any information to support you assumption. Not a good way to represent your side. Kind of like coming to a gun fight with a rubber banana..chilout

[Guest]

Just in case that instead of discussing race you might want a good analysis of the upcoming elections, this is from a Democrat who worries a bit.......and this little segment points to both the socialist claims and the race you fret over always...

"Democrats have an electoral advantage if they stay united and beat a path to the polls. But if polite prodding from the left in the primary turns to angry rhetoric, suddenly liberal ambivalence toward Clinton could shift to distaste or, just as bad, apathy. A liberal county here and another there with just enough of those alienated voters, and a state goes red. Then the White House does, too.

The biggest threat to Clinton losing her presidential bid isn't Republicans; it's Democrats.

But it is fallacy to believe that attacks, instead of debates, can do anything but undermine the chances of a party and its nominee. It would also be a mistake to push Clinton too far to the left with no way back. While Democrats have become more liberal, and Americans are more progressive generally on social issues, the country as a whole is still economically conservative."

Hillary Clinton's threat is Democrats | Newsday (http://www.newsday.com/opinion/oped/hillary-clinton-s-threat-is-democrats-1.10672170)

I thought it was interesting. Sorry it does not call anyone a racist or anything like that but it is a pretty good read.

Doubting you will read the entire article but at one point he mentions how a lack of a debate on the left might be of concern.

Hearing this morning that there is no plan at this time for a Democratic debate, even though besides Biden coming in to join the other two, now the CEO of Starbucks, Howard Schultz is seriously joining the democratic fray

Maybe liberals can get Debbie Wasser-name to throw her hat into the ring and join a debate with Billary.
They'll ask Hillary a question. She'll answer with "what difference does it make" or blame the GOP
They'll ask Wasser-name a question. She'll look irritated and change the subject due to ignorance. Make up some more lying rhetoric like she always does and stare into space like a headlight dazed deer.

[Guest]

What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?

A Socialist believes in more gov control and nationalization of industry (supposedly for the people).

A Democrat believes in more gov control and nationalization of industry (supposedly for the people).

Debbie was right, the real difference is between a Democrat and a Republican. Even though she was trying to salvage the interview when she was given a tough question, she hit it on the head. There is a big difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Not so much between a Socialist and a Democrat.

Years ago, America fought wars against socialists and communists. Now, a liberal

[Guest]

What is the difference between a Democrat and a Socialist?

A Socialist believes in more gov control and nationalization of industry (supposedly for the people).

A Democrat believes in more gov control and nationalization of industry (supposedly for the people).

Debbie was right, the real difference is between a Democrat and a Republican. Even though she was trying to salvage the interview when she was given a tough question, she hit it on the head. There is a big difference between a Republican and a Democrat. Not so much between a Socialist and a Democrat.

Years ago, America fought wars against socialists and communists. Now, a liberal .... America embraces socialism and with the attacks on churches, seems to be aiming toward communism, a distant cousin of socialism.

[Guest]

What socialist country in Europe believes in the nationalization of industry? I think that is communism, where the government controls levels of production both in industry, and farming.

How many states passed laws legalizing gay marriage? Wasn't something like 30+? Didn't the Supreme Court make it the law of the land recently? The gay rights issue wasn't an attack on the church.

The Republicans always try to make Socialism, a swear word. I haven't seen them anywhere go into great detail, what socialism is, and why it is so bad. I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either. I don't care what tag you put on any government program. If it helps the country, it is a good program.

If SOCIAL Security isn't a socialist program, what the hell is it? Isn't Socialism programs that help the many? That is why Medicare For All would be a socialist program.

My guess when Republicans throw Socialism out there, they want the uneducated god fearing people to confuse it with Communism. It is a scare tactic.

Concerning the list maker, get a grip. You are way off base.

[Guest]

Will someone please bring the Wikipedia definition "Socialism" to the thread? I tried, but failed. It would help a great deal to know that we are talking about the same thing. Thanks.

[Guest]

If it not to much to ask, bring Wikipedia's definition of "Communism" as well. Thanks again.

[Guest]

What socialist country in Europe believes in the nationalization of industry? I think that is communism, where the government controls levels of production both in industry, and farming.

How many states passed laws legalizing gay marriage? Wasn't something like 30+? Didn't the Supreme Court make it the law of the land recently? The gay rights issue wasn't an attack on the church.

The Republicans always try to make Socialism, a swear word. I haven't seen them anywhere go into great detail, what socialism is, and why it is so bad. I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either. I don't care what tag you put on any government program. If it helps the country, it is a good program.

If SOCIAL Security isn't a socialist program, what the hell is it? Isn't Socialism programs that help the many? That is why Medicare For All would be a socialist program.

My guess when Republicans throw Socialism out there, they want the uneducated god fearing people to confuse it with Communism. It is a scare tactic.

Concerning the list maker, get a grip. You are way off base.

1. Social Security is something I paid into for many years and is not even close to socialism.

2. I find it interesting that you admit "I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either." [B]YET, you badmouth an entire political party who just might KNOW what it is and are opposed



"The Pros of Socialism

Social Equality - When it comes to social equality, public education is considered as one of the best examples to easily equalize the education for people.

Economic Equality - In the field of economic equality, public housing, social security, food stamps and minimum wage are considered as the excellent ways to easily reduce poverty.

Medical Equality - It is a fact that everyone must need to get healthcare even those unemployed individual has the right to receive healthcare services. Those persons who can’t pay their medical needs must also receive healthcare services.

Political Equality - When it comes to political equality, socialism has the ability to increase the rights of the workers and allow two political parties.


The Cons of Socialism

Higher Cost - Basically, socialism has higher cost than other government forms therefore taxes are high in some of the socialistic countries. Most of the socialistic countries have higher debt for every citizen.

Less Entrepreneurship - When taxes are high, most of the entrepreneurs will find a hard time and difficulty to start up their new business. If a certain company encounters economic trouble, the usual thing that they will do is to lay off most of their employees just to save their company as well as the jobs of their respective employees.

Big Government - If there are more taxes, it simply means it has a big government. Most of the big governments usually tend to have less innovation and stagnation and this is one of the reasons why small companies can easily adapt this kind of circumstances.

Communism - It is true that communism is a big part of socialism however, communism does not completely work and the usual outcome of this is socialism doesn’t have the ability to imply communism.

Inequalities - According to researches, it is quite impossible to easily eliminate inequalities through socialism since socialism does not completely work it only attempts to eliminate inequalities.

Socialism Pros and Cons | APECSEC.org (http://apecsec.org/socialism-pros-and-cons/)

[Guest]

Another but quite similar comparison although a lot longer. I am cutting and pasting only the introduction but the pros and cons are listed in the link.

"The literal definition of socialism is a social and economic system characterized by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy, as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system. Socialism has a long history. Modern historians don’t believe that socialism existed in the ancient times or during the era of Aristotle and Plato but there is a school of thought that tend to endorse a view that the great philosophers of various eras had accounted for socialism in their political motifs.

Socialism doesn’t find many takers today but there are many political parties in a few democracies of the world where the primary ideology is socialism. There are many socialism pros and cons. It is the outweighing of the pros by the cons that has made socialism relatively irrelevant and thus insignificant today. But there are certain measures taken by most elected governments in the world that are in accordance with socialist practices.

Socialism had witnessed a surge in endorsement and the ideology had become quite popular at the end of the nineteenth century and there were many movements in the world subsequently in the twentieth century that tried to establish socialist governments. Communism too is a cousin of socialism, albeit there are some differences between the two."


Top 12 Pros and Cons of Socialism | NLCATP.org (http://nlcatp.org/top-12-pros-and-cons-of-socialism/)

[Guest]

From the above site, this is the top 4 points for and against....or at least in the order they were presented...

TOP CONS


. Socialism has many disadvantages, one of the most important of which is a financial burden on the state. Whenever a government has to be operated in accordance with the principles or ideology of socialism, there would be massive spending.

Socialism is anti ambition. It doesn’t encourage entrepreneurships and that curtails the natural tendency of people to dream and to do something different. Socialism attempts to put everyone in the same cask and everyone is expected to do similar things. This is not just against nature but also detrimental to the evolution of a country, society and indeed the human race.

Socialism requires a huge government and a massive bureaucracy. With limited privatization and more people being in government jobs, there is greater corruption and only a small group of people sitting at the heights of power tend to get richer.

Socialism can make an entire country lazy and unproductive. Citizens may get used to doles and welfare programs and thus not work at all

________________________________________________

TOP PROS


Socialism attempts to establish an order that promotes equality. In modern societies, which are mostly capitalistic, equality is a utopia. Although every citizen of a country has the same rights, duties and also become eligible for the same basic benefits or facilities

Socialism requires public education to be made mandatory up to a certain level. It attempts to ensure that every child born in the country gets access to education up to a standard which will make everyone equally educated. This is done by making education affordable or state sponsored.

Socialism attempts to instill economic equality. This is done by offering social security, public housing programs ensure that homes remain affordable and that there are enough homes to house every citizen of the country, food stamps are issued for those living in poverty so they get fed and survive without the helplessness of not having even the basic resources, and minimum wages are determined so no one is exploited to an extent that one doesn’t get to live a dignified life.

Socialism also ensures equal access to healthcare. Medical attention is the right of the entire human race and socialism makes it mandatory to keep healthcare costs affordable and free if it has to be so in order to have everyone being offered adequate medical help whenever needed

[Guest]

I hope that allows for some intelligent conversation and I feel compelled, I suppose on a personal level to mention two that were not copied for reading but I think important......

" Socialism is the bedrock of communism. Some people reject this idea but it is true. Communism is actually an extreme form of socialism, which has been proven to be a futile ideology in the modern world.

Socialism is a failed concept in itself as it is impossible to do away with all forms of inequalities. "

Neither of the links are of a Democratic or Republican origin and in fact are both from NON american websites thus perhaps they know of what they speak.

We looking for Utopia and it has never been found. I thought we had gotten close but seems some want to change it.

[Guest]

The only Democrat that I have known that had the guts to admit to being a socialist is Bernie Sanders. Liberals want the traits of socialism without the stigma of the label. Sorry, but the Democrat"ic" party has gone the way of dinosaurs when our parents passed. The new Democrat party is an entirely different animal.

You tell me what the difference is between socialist and Democrat.

[Guest]

The difference between a Socialist and a Democrat is easy, 8 more years!

[Guest]

You tell me what the difference is between socialist and Democrat.

...and you tell me what the difference is between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK.

[Guest]

The difference between a Socialist and a Democrat is easy, 8 more years!

Which means exactly what ?

I really want to hear what you meant because this post and your others manifest your well thought out grasp of current events.

[Guest]

...and you tell me what the difference is between The Villages Tea Party and the KKK.

I always find this kind of comment interesting...troubling but interesting.

I know two people who are advocates of the Tea Party, although the group, I think has stopped growing. It had its rise with budget differences but I digress...the two people I know who are advocates...one is black so I know he is not a racist and the other, I would bet my life is not.

I think so many years of the Reids, etc calling racist on anything and everything and he, Reid has made more racist remarks than most, but the constant yelling race for the last few years has become sort of a habit...a bad one, but a habit because nobody to my knowledge has ever accredited the organization with anything racial.

I am wondering...we have in congress a BLACK CAUCUS....ok....and a TEA PARTY CAUCUS.

Is the BLACK CAUCUS racist ? I mean, it even mentions skin color in its name.

Not trying to be funny, but the obsession with race is holding us back and needs to be put aside.

[Guest]

A Socialism always fails free enterprise, competition, the rich and not rich gives the best balance. Two north poles of a magnet will never pull together. They repel and sooner or later fall apart. Democrats will eventually fall also.

[Guest]

1. Social Security is something I paid into for many years and is not even close to socialism.

2. I find it interesting that you admit "I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either." YET, you badmouth an entire political party who just might KNOW what it is and are opposed The Pros of Socialism

Pros of Socialism:
Economic Equality - In the field of economic equality, public housing, [B]social security, food stamps and minimum wage are considered as the excellent ways to easily reduce poverty.

Socialism attempts to instill economic equality. This is done by offering social security, public housing programs ensure that homes remain affordable and that there are enough homes to house every citizen of the country, food stamps are issued for those living in poverty so they get fed and survive without the helplessness of not having even the basic resources, and minimum wages are determined so no one is exploited to an extent that one doesn’t get to live a dignified life

Thank you listing the pros and cons of Socialism. I think that you might want to pull back your comment on social security, since it is listed in pros from two different sources.

The Republicans might not know what is also, as evidenced by your comment on social security. My I offer a suggestion don't start very post with an attack on someone of an opposing party, because your own words can and will be used against you.

[Guest]

1. Social Security is something I paid into for many years and is not even close to socialism.

2. I find it interesting that you admit "I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either." YET, you badmouth an entire political party who just might KNOW what it is and are opposed The Pros of Socialism

Pros of Socialism:
Economic Equality - In the field of economic equality, public housing, [B]social security, food stamps and minimum wage are considered as the excellent ways to easily reduce poverty.

Socialism attempts to instill economic equality. This is done by offering social security, public housing programs ensure that homes remain affordable and that there are enough homes to house every citizen of the country, food stamps are issued for those living in poverty so they get fed and survive without the helplessness of not having even the basic resources, and minimum wages are determined so no one is exploited to an extent that one doesn’t get to live a dignified life

Thank you listing the pros and cons of Socialism. I think that you might want to pull back your comment on social security, since it is listed in pros from two different sources.

The Republicans might not know what is also, as evidenced by your comment on social security. My I offer a suggestion don't start very post with an attack on someone of an opposing party, because your own words can and will be used against you.

I think you may be confused.

I did NOT invent the pros and cons of socialism. I simply supplied links for people to read. I never edit any of my links to insure they measure up to what I want it to say, just supplied information. I often supply links for the good of the order and not necessarily to make my own point.

On Social Security, I DID PAY A LOT OF MONEY INTO THAT FUND and I think I know exactly what it is and how it has been robbed. Social Security is mentioned with socialism for sure, but if you bothered to read the entire thing in context, it is based on simply government handout. You will note that the cons include massive spending by the government which would include a social security program.

Again, please.....read the entire thing in context. If I did not pay in money to social security then who in the heck got all the money they took from my pay for many many years and lied to me about being able to get it back
when I retired

You are reading the text I supplied without realizing you are placing what you want it to say to rebut. I assure you that is what is meant if you have read even a little bit about socialism. NOBODY GIVES ANYTHING IN..THEY JUST TAKE IT OUT. THAT IS SOCIALISM. Please understand socialism before you comment then there can be an intelligent conversation.

Now on the insult part. On the assumption that you are the one to whom I responded with all my links....When a post contains "My guess when Republicans throw Socialism out there, they want the uneducated god fearing people to confuse it with Communism. It is a scare tactic. "

Or

"Concerning the list maker, get a grip. You are way off base."

Or

"The Republicans always try to make Socialism, a swear word. I haven't seen them anywhere go into great detail, what socialism is, and why it is so bad"


AND THEN admits...."I will be honest. I haven't looked that hard to find out why either."

Those comments did not inspire me to think you wanted a real intelligent conversation and your intent was very clear. I always like to let folks know MY INTENT and to let them know I am not stupid and can read their intent. and I wanted you to know that you were NOT looking for any intelligent conversation on something you did not even bother to research.

I enjoy conversation but with people that have a better intent than to bash one party of the other.

Now, I hope you get inspired to read a bit about socialism, where it has been tried and how it has failed.

I also hope you consider what you say about Social Security and if I am wrong, please let me know....somebody owes me a ton of money that they took from me over the years.

[Guest]

Suggest you refer to this link....


Socialism vs. Social Security « The Stanford Progressive (http://www.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=49)

" The Public Option is no more “expansive” of govern ment than the Social Security Act. Creating universal health insurance in general is no more socialist than refusing to let the unin sured die outside a hospital."

Please read this and anything else you can on socialism, and you are welcome to the quote on public option.

[Guest]

Remember when President Bush offered the suggestion that people like me who "invested" so much by giving my money to the government, that we be allowed to actually invest that money since it was ours ?

If not read up on that also to better understand what is going on.

By the way, while his idea is now discussed with respect, he was laughed at for that suggestion by the democratic congress.

[Guest]

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.



Adopti

[Guest]

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself

The above was from Wikipedia, and not from me.

I think might want to reconsider what you know about social security. For starters, it is a social security tax. Tax. The money that we paid into it on an annual basis went to pay for people that collected social security that year. If they ended social security today, we wouldn't get a dime of our money back. I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings. Not to worry, it is not going to happen in our lifetime.

Social security is a socialist program just like the others in the pros of socialism. Current working tax payers are funding the social security benefits that we are receiving today.

The whole intent of the person that initiated this thread was to bash the Democrats. If that wasn't his/her intent, it sure appeared that way. If you look at the threads that receive the most responses, they are ones that bash either one party, or the other from the get go Given your constant use of capitalization, bold letters, it is gives the impression that you don't want to have a conversation with people that don't agree with you. You want to shout them down.

I am not blind to what's happening on this forum. The last thing that I want to do is get into someone's brain. There is no call for name calling, or tagging people with something that they are not.

[Guest]

Social Security Trust Fund


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Jump to: navigation, search


The United States Social Security Administration collects payroll taxes and uses the money collected to pay Old-Age, Survivors, and Disability Insurance benefits. This is done by way of trust funds. There are two trust funds which the Social Security Administration controls: Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI) and Disability Insurance (DI), collectively referred to as the "Trust Fund" in this article.

When the program runs a surplus, the excess funds increase the value of the Trust Fund. At the end of 2014, the Trust Fund contained (or alternatively, was owed) $2.79 trillion, up $25 billion from 2013.[1] The Trust Fund is required by law to be invested in non-marketable securities issued and guaranteed by the "full faith and credit" of the federal government. These securities earn a market rate of interest.[2]

Excess funds are used by the government for non-Social Security purposes, creating the obligations to the Social Security Administration and thus program recipients. However, Congress could cut these obligations by altering the law. Trust Fund obligations are considered "intra-governmental" debt, a component of the "public" or "national" debt. As of June 2015, the intragovernmental debt was $5.1 trillion of the $18.2 trillion national debt.[3]

According to the Social Security Trustees, who oversee the program and report on its financial condition, program costs are expected to exceed non-interest income from 2010 onward. However, due to interest (earned at a 3.6% rate in 2014) the program will run an overall surplus that adds to the fund through the end of 2019. Under current law, the securities in the Trust Fund represent a legal obligation the government must honor when program revenues are no longer sufficient to fully fund benefit payments. However, when the Trust Fund is used to cover program deficits in a given year, the Trust Fund balance is reduced. By 2034, the Trust Fund is expected to be exhausted. Thereafter, payroll taxes are projected to only cover approximately 79% of program obligations.[4]

There is controversy regarding whether the U.S. government will be able to borrow sufficient amounts to honor its obligations fully to recipients or whether program modifications are required. This is a challenge for the federal government overall, not just the Social Security program.

Congress could reduce the national debt by 5.1 trillion dollars by getting rid of social security. Owing money to yourself is considered debt.

[Guest]

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.



Adopti

Dear Guest: I state right out of the chute that many in the Republican Party are disappointing because they are more concerned with staying in office then serving "we the people" its why Trumps' message is resonating with voters. I am a Republican

Debbie Wassermann Schultz was asked again on Meet The Press to explain the difference between a Democrat and Socialist and again she could not and she is the leader in Democratic National Committee

The Black Caucus serves only black issues and some of those issues are extreme. The black lives matter is nothing more than a means to stop police from doing their jobs. It is sad when a politicians and there were two Democratic challengers are booed because they said all lives matter. Think about the division created here and is that good for America?

I also agree with you concerning corporate welfare. I am against it in all forms and especially Export/Import and the so called renewables that taxpayers support that haven't added anything but more tax dollars. Telsa Motors and their customers draw a whole lot of tax dollars. Telsa owner wants more stringent CAFE laws for auto. guess why?

The social programs to help the needy become eternal and never are monitored become larger with more abuse and fraud. Food stamps grow free stuff grows and we now are approach a majority of the population that relies on government. Abled body people who can fend for themselves but have lost or never had an ambition. Yes there are people who can't but those with disablities are lost in this system and the can's continue to strip them of resources. Look at the homeless situation. I agree with a hand up but I am sick of the hand outs. Good intentions are not enough and violate man's basic law that each carry his own water. NOW AGAIN I AM ADDRESSING THE CAN'S WHO SPONGE ON SOCIETY AND NOT THE CAN'T 'S WHO NEED HELP.

As a side bar I had a woman who worked for me. she was blind but insisted on being independent. She received training from the state and worked as our word processor with specialized computer equipment. and i found along my travels in the business world may such examples

I believe acts of charity and compassion not to be the benefits of socialism but instead the acts of intelligent capitalist who recognize the benefits of making as many people productive that is possible...again a hand up and not a hand out

Personal Best Regards:

[Guest]

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.



Adopti

First, as seems to be the norm on this forum, NOBODY SAID THE BLACK CAUCUS WAS RACIST.

Fact is it was asked as a question to make a point and was never presented as anything other than a sarcastic question as a result of a post tying the Tea Party to the KKK.

HERE IS THE EXACT QUOTE YOU ARE REFERRING TO....

"Is the BLACK CAUCUS racist ? I mean, it even mentions skin color in its name.

Not trying to be funny, but the obsession with race is holding us back and needs to be put aside."

Now if you want to respond to that which is what was posted that is fine, but do not make things up to fit your purpose.

[Guest]

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.



Adopti

I took you to task on the Black Caucus but agree with much of what you say, not all of it however.

Your comment on the Republican party and something I just read might be of interest to you. The old bad guys of the Republican party...KOCH BROTHERS....well

"As top GOP presidential candidates arrived at a hotel here to court the influential donors of the Koch network, Charles Koch called on retreat attendees to unite with him in a campaign against "corporate welfare" and "irresponsible spending" by both political parties.

Speaking on the hotel's grassy lawn with the Pacific Ocean shimmering behind him, Koch opened the gathering hosted by Freedom Partners by noting that the theme of the weekend would be "Unleashing Our Free Society." Koch network donors and politicians alike must work toward "eliminating welfare for the wealthy," he said."

Koch calls for unity against 'corporate welfare' - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/08/02/politics/charles-koch-corporate-welfare/index.html)

[Guest]

Trust Fund Falsehoods. The message claims that FDR promised Social Security funds would be used "for no other government program," but that Lyndon Johnson and a Democratic Congress later took Social Security into the General Fund "so that Congress could spend it." This is twisted history. The government has always been able to use Social Security funds for other purposes when not needed to finance benefits. As DeWitt states: "[T]here has never been any change in the way the Social Security program is financed or the way that Social Security payroll taxes are used by the federal government." All LBJ did in 1968 was to make Social Security taxes and spending part of a "unified budget." As DeWitt notes, this was an accounting issue and "has no affect on the actual operations of the [Social Security] Trust Fund itself

The above was from Wikipedia, and not from me.

I think might want to reconsider what you know about social security. For starters, it is a social security tax. Tax. The money that we paid into it on an annual basis went to pay for people that collected social security that year. If they ended social security today, we wouldn't get a dime of our money back. I don't enjoy being the bearer of bad tidings. Not to worry, it is not going to happen in our lifetime.

Social security is a socialist program just like the others in the pros of socialism. Current working tax payers are funding the social security benefits that we are receiving today.

The whole intent of the person that initiated this thread was to bash the Democrats. If that wasn't his/her intent, it sure appeared that way. If you look at the threads that receive the most responses, they are ones that bash either one party, or the other from the get go Given your constant use of capitalization, bold letters, it is gives the impression that you don't want to have a conversation with people that don't agree with you. You want to shout them down.

I am not blind to what's happening on this forum. The last thing that I want to do is get into someone's brain. There is no call for name calling, or tagging people with something that they are not.

Instead of relying on Wikipedia for your information, which is not always accurate, why not go to the Social Security website to get your answers. Anyone can submit their opinions to Wikipedia, from what I can see of some of the information that they provide.

[Guest]

The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.

Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.

You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.

The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.

Adopti

You're right, having "black" in a name or title does not make it racist. Courts said blacks can't be racists....only whites. :1rotfl:

You make a false premise when suggesting that capitalism is hurting the country because corporations move overseas to avoid paying taxes. The gov is hurting the country because they FORCED the corporations overseas with their highest corporate tax rate in the world. Unions and minimum wage laws have caused business to seek workers from cheaper sources, INCLUDING illegal aliens. The gov protects illegals, so that is the gov's fault.
Corporate welfare? Nice term but it doesn't click. Corporations are offered lower taxes by means of legal tax breaks, not subsidies to encourage them to stay/locate in a location or hire some special interest group. States offer tax deferrals for so many years to entice business into their states. This creates more jobs for their residents, which means more tax revenue.

Socialism is a dream utopia for the feeble minded to wish for. Socialism only works as long as the money coming into the gov is more than what it is dishing out for social programs/welfare. The only way you can have high tax revenues is if the economy is flourishing. It won't flourish if the gov causes corporations out of business due to high tax rates. It is a prove point that the better businesses do, the higher the tax revenues.

And before you suggest that socialism has a higher rate of middle class and less poverty, you had better do a comparison test. Our poverty level includes TVs, cell phones, AC, cable, etc. Our lower class folks live as well as many middle class in socialist countries. And before you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, I have lived overseas most of my life and have seen how their so-called "middle class" live.

Socialism is nothing more than a dream utopia. It doesn't work. Do you think that anyone in Russia wishes to go back to the old USSR? Only those that lost their power during that period.

You will always have the elite, no matter what. Socialism doesn't make a better middle class. It just makes a big lower class and an upper class. Middle class doesn't exist in socialism.

[Guest]

Thank you Mr. Personal Best Regards for posting a response to my post. I was beginning to think that you, and the person that posted directly below you, were one and the same. If that was the case, there would be no reason to continue to post here.

What is the difference between the Village Tea Party, and the KKK? In the serious department, that is over the top, and just not right. Nobody is as bad as the KKK. In the just kidding department, the KKK won't be the target of the IRS, if they apply for a 501(c)4 charitable political organization classification. I don't think the KKK has any need to place political ads on TV.

That was my post. What am I making up there to fit my purpose? My purpose maybe be for you to see the light of day. That's is fool's errand. I was that fool, but no more. If your remarks were sarcastic, that is the best sarcasm I have ever seen.

Has this president with the help of Harry Reid pushed issues concerning blacks? Of course, they have. Why would anyone expect that he wouldn't? Tying the Tea Party to the KKK was nonsense. However, given the timing of the birth of the Tea Party, and their over the top signs at the Tea Party's first Washington gathering, anyone that thinks that there weren't any racial overtones there, are just kidding themselves.

I think that this was you, but I could be wrong concerning the new tax id laws, the new tax id laws were directed at both WHITES AND BLACKS. The question that I asked in response, and has never been answered is, if the Penn. new tax id laws weren't directed at inner city blacks, then how do you explain the leader of the Penn. house comment, "We just gave Penn. to Romney?"

The color of this president's skin has fueled racism of both parties to unbearable levels. Couple that with the press's coverage of any event that fits in with their racial leanings, should make any person with an open mind to throw up.

Given the sides both parties seemed to have taken concerning immigration reform, racism is going to continue with just a different minority taking center stage.

The question ask what is the difference between Socialism, and the Democrats is a loaded question. Just because the Democrats have adopted some socialist ideas, that doesn't make them socialists. I am sorry, but Republicans have thrown out there that Socialism is a swear word, and all Democrats should run away from it. Why do the extremes of both parties get to dictate all the political conversation that I going on in the country today?

In that same vein, Donald Trump has stated several times, that he will win the black, and Hispanic vote, because he will bring jobs back to the US from China, and other overseas countries. I am a job creator. He won't have time to explain how that will be done in Thursday's debate. Capitalist sent those jobs overseas. If he is going to bring jobs back, isn't he going to have to attack capitalism? Since the difference in pay here versus overseas is so great, I can't see any incentive plan that could offset the difference in pay. He is a hellva lot smarter than I am (the understatement of the year), but the devil is in the details. Hopefully, sometime before Nov, 2016, if he is successful in becoming the Republican nominee, he will explain some of the details.

[Guest]

The difference??

In the old days, we shot socialists in wars. Can't do it if they call themselves liberals..

[Guest]

"...That's is fool's errand. I was that fool,.."

No argument from this end.

[Guest]

What is the effective corporate tax rate in the US? Is that the highest in the world?
The minimum wage rate hasn't been changed in many years. The current minimum wage doesn't even get working people in many places in the US to substance level. The Earned Income Credit brings people to substance level. When the government has to get working people to substance level, that is corporate welfare. Click! Click! Click! Click!

You can't be suggesting that lowering the minimum wage will bring back jobs to the US. That doesn't click. The difference wasn't one or two dollars an hour in pay. You are talking about paying people in the US one or two dollars an hour. That is a five dollar an hour cut in pay here. China houses some of their workers at the work site, and then fences them in. You pay people one or two dollars an hour here, and they can't get back, and forth to work on that money.

Wal*Mart and several other larger companies have seen the light, and are going to be paying their full time people a living wage. The increase in pay will be implemented over several years.

Where have I ever suggested that Socialism is the way to go? You keep on dealing in absolutes. That are no absolutes in Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. China is a perfect example of that. They are adopting Capitalist views concerning their economy. The market is setting production levels not the Communist government.


You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism.

How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country.

That is the entire statement. Maybe I didn't make my point clear, I will except that. However the premise was Capitalist moved their good paying jobs overseas due to the lower wages overseas. I thought that was a given. Avoiding paying taxes was a side benefit.

[Guest]

It is nice to see that the one linens snuck in an adult conversation. Their posts always heighten the level of conversation here to unbelievable heights. Keep up the good work.

[Guest]

What is the effective corporate tax rate in the US? Is that the highest in the world?
The minimum wage rate hasn't been changed in many years. The current minimum wage doesn't even get working people in many places in the US to substance level. The Earned Income Credit brings people to substance level. When the government has to get working people to substance level, that is corporate welfare. Click! Click! Click! Click!

You can't be suggesting that lowering the minimum wage will bring back jobs to the US. That doesn't click. The difference wasn't one or two dollars an hour in pay. You are talking about paying people in the US one or two dollars an hour. That is a five dollar an hour cut in pay here. China houses some of their workers at the work site, and then fences them in. You pay people one or two dollars an hour here, and they can't get back, and forth to work on that money.

Wal*Mart and several other larger companies have seen the light, and are going to be paying their full time people a living wage. The increase in pay will be implemented over several years.

Where have I ever suggested that Socialism is the way to go? You keep on dealing in absolutes. That are no absolutes in Capitalism, Socialism, or Communism. China is a perfect example of that. They are adopting Capitalist views concerning their economy. The market is setting production levels not the Communist government.


You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism.

How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country.

That is the entire statement. Maybe I didn't make my point clear, I will except that. However the premise was Capitalist moved their good paying jobs overseas due to the lower wages overseas. I thought that was a given. Avoiding paying taxes was a side benefit.

America had the highest corporate tax rate in the world in 2014. I'm not sure about 2015. Marginal tax rate? I believe America was third in the world, less than the top two by .9% and .1%. Not much.

"Good paying jobs....shipped overseas..." ?? That's funny, and ridiculous.

"Capitalists are hurting this country" ??? Nope, it's the gov infringement that is hurting this country. They wouldn't be moving overseas if not for the strict gov regulations and tax rates. The opposite of capitalism is nationalism, which is kin to socialism. Your socialism would stagnate the economy and ambition.

Lower/higher minimum wages? Sorry, I don't believe the gov should dictate minimum wages. I think the economy and private enterprise should. Supply and demand should. Why should the gov get involved in your employment anyway? Minimum wage jobs aren't meant to subsist on. Most of them are part-time jobs anyway, for students and retirees.

You might even want to address the fact that we have to import foreign workers into our country for talent because our kids are too lazy to learn the job skills for technical employment.

Blaming a deficient economy on capitalism is ludicrous. Especially, when that economy is hindered by the inception of socialistic principles forced on us by gov infringement.

Can the tax system be improved upon. Yep.

It's real easy to blame the wealthy for one's lack of success or motivation. If not for those wealthy investors, we wouldn't have the great lifestyle we live. As a matter of fact, most of the world enjoys the fruits of the wealthy.

Leave capitalism alone and let it bloom, and we'll all be better for it. Even the so-called poverty level folks. The ones that have cable TV's, Internet, AC, cell phones, etc. That's real poverty,ha,ha.

[Guest]

Wow did enjoy seeing her put on the spot. And couldn't answer because there is No difference.