djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:34:14 GMT -5
Belgium has a population the same size as Ohio so not sure how comparable that is. it is far more ethnically diverse than the US, and nominally Democratic Socialist. so, that shoots down the Ethnic argument. India is far more populous, AND ethnically diverse, and it is ALSO Democratic Socialist. so, I think that settles the argument: a country can be Democratic Socialist AND ethnically diverse/populous. so that means that WE can do it too. and yeah, it really does strike me as making excuses to say otherwise.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:34:58 GMT -5
Well if course they (we) get more dollars...there are a lot more (poor) of us! And I hope that people getting assistance are poor. Otherwise there is something wrong with the system. And that goes for whatever race is getting assistance right, so what is the debate about?
are you angry because more brown people are poor?
because they are angry, too; so that must not be it.
it is because you are assuming WHY they are poor? you are assuming it is THEIR fault. correct?
note: parenthetical remarks added for clarity.
You are the one that said whites get more benefits. As a percentage of whites to population, they get less. People always leave that party out. Someone just did it on Facebook about a specific crime. She said she is more likely to have a white male somthis to her. But the statistics show that’s less white males donthis crime than their % of population says they should. It is my pet peeve. I’ve never hated on anyone. But I do not think we should be importing people that are not self-sufficient. Other countries do not do that.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:36:04 GMT -5
My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point. arguably, having children is not a "life choice", it is a biological necessity.
how about this, for a counterargument:
why does/should anyone NEED to work?
we survived approximately 1M years without the standard employee/employer relationship. what makes it suddenly necessary now?
and if it is NOT necessary, then why should an employer NOT be responsible for other things that are NOT necessary? in other words, where is the line drawn? is not NOT completely arbitrary?
If one doesn’t need to work then they shouldn’t work. But expecting an amplifier to pay for your personal choices because one chooses to work is not ok.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:36:30 GMT -5
It's real easy to promise free everything while saying the solution is more taxes on the wealthy and middle class to buy votes. If anyone will honestly slash from the budget to pay for more things feel free but that ain't happening and I'm not going to support anything that's a vote grab and will add to the debt.
not to toot Sander's horn, but he is not for unfunded mandates. he is just not a guy in favor of cutting our way to benefits.
he wants to tax the ever loving crap out of us.
give him some credit for at least being honest about it.
because a lot of people running aren't.
Trump for example.
|
|
NastyWoman
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 24, 2010 20:50:37 GMT -5
Posts: 14,351
|
Post by NastyWoman on Aug 13, 2019 16:37:24 GMT -5
Democratic Socialism seems to work pretty well throughout the developed world. Here is a list of countries that have greater diversity than the US and seem to work fine with Democratic Socialism (in order, from least to most diverse):
Spain, Belgium, Switzerland, India, South Africa.
All of these countries have massive immigration compared to the US.
we LOVE to make excuses about our "problems", but that is just what they are: excuses.
Every country has problems and that's not necessarily a case for switching to democratic socialism, communism or capitalism. Spain and Belgium have debt to GDP ratios on par with the US. South Africa has one of the worst income inequalities in the world. I don't know anyone in the US who has ever talked about the US being more like India which has corruption, sanitation and healthcare issues. Belgium has a population the same size as Ohio so not sure how comparable that is. It's not excuses it's comparing a country with a population of ~330M to the Nordic democratic socialist countries that are often pointed to by Sanders and the like. It's real easy to promise free everything while saying the solution is more taxes on the wealthy and middle class to buy votes. If anyone will honestly slash from the budget to pay for more things feel free but that ain't happening and I'm not going to support anything that's a vote grab and will add to the debt. No problem: start by explaining why we need a military complex that is more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and Germany COMBINED! I bet you anything that there is a lot of fat that can be cut from the DoD. It would pay for all those prograns you so despise and then some. We could probably start paying down some debt as well if we looked at needs v. wants of the DoD
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:37:36 GMT -5
right, so what is the debate about?
are you angry because more brown people are poor?
because they are angry, too; so that must not be it.
it is because you are assuming WHY they are poor? you are assuming it is THEIR fault. correct?
note: parenthetical remarks added for clarity.
You are the one that said whites get more benefits. As a percentage of whites to population, they get less. that is because they are less poor as a % of the population. can we agree on this?
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:38:57 GMT -5
right, so what is the debate about?
are you angry because more brown people are poor?
because they are angry, too; so that must not be it.
it is because you are assuming WHY they are poor? you are assuming it is THEIR fault. correct?
note: parenthetical remarks added for clarity.
You are the one that said whites get more benefits. As a percentage of whites to population, they get less. People always leave that party out. Someone just did it on Facebook about a specific crime. She said she is more likely to have a white male somthis to her. But the statistics show that’s less white males donthis crime than their % of population says they should. It is my pet peeve. I’ve never hated on anyone. But I do not think we should be importing people that are not self-sufficient. Other countries do not do that. they absolutely do, and we ALWAYS have. and for very good reason. do you need me to explain that comment?
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 16:38:59 GMT -5
Belgium has a population the same size as Ohio so not sure how comparable that is. it is far more ethnically diverse than the US, and nominally Democratic Socialist. so, that shoots down the Ethnic argument. India is far more populous, AND ethnically diverse, and it is ALSO Democratic Socialist. so, I think that settles the argument: a country can be Democratic Socialist AND ethnically diverse/populous. so that means that WE can do it too. and yeah, it really does strike me as making excuses to say otherwise. By that logic anything that has been done by any country can be done by another. The reality of actually accomplishing that is the issue.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:40:57 GMT -5
arguably, having children is not a "life choice", it is a biological necessity.
how about this, for a counterargument:
why does/should anyone NEED to work?
we survived approximately 1M years without the standard employee/employer relationship. what makes it suddenly necessary now?
and if it is NOT necessary, then why should an employer NOT be responsible for other things that are NOT necessary? in other words, where is the line drawn? is not NOT completely arbitrary?
If one doesn’t need to work then they shouldn’t work. But expecting an amplifier to pay for your personal choices because one chooses to work is not ok. this is not what I was trying to say, but we are getting off on a tangent that is largely unrelated to this topic. I would like to take it up again, sometime, but it is probably too much of a distraction for this thread.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:41:52 GMT -5
It's real easy to promise free everything while saying the solution is more taxes on the wealthy and middle class to buy votes. If anyone will honestly slash from the budget to pay for more things feel free but that ain't happening and I'm not going to support anything that's a vote grab and will add to the debt.
not to toot Sander's horn, but he is not for unfunded mandates. he is just not a guy in favor of cutting our way to benefits.
he wants to tax the ever loving crap out of us.
give him some credit for at least being honest about it.
because a lot of people running aren't.
Trump for example.
I. D.o.n.t understand why anyone is ok with being taxed to death And that is a bizarre autocorrect on my phone that I. D.o.n.t know how to get rid of I will say, if one of the “give everything for free” gets in, I will be retiring once the free stuff kicks in. My biggest worry is health insurance. If the taxpayers are going to pay for that, I can definitely live off my rentals. And with the depreciation I will be considered low income. I’m intentionally not paying off the mortgages on the rentals but wil on my house and my car loan (neither of which help me with taxes). So I should be in favor of socialism but I’m not. And I will most likely qualify for all kinds of stuff. But in the end, I will have the attitude of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 16:42:21 GMT -5
Every country has problems and that's not necessarily a case for switching to democratic socialism, communism or capitalism. Spain and Belgium have debt to GDP ratios on par with the US. South Africa has one of the worst income inequalities in the world. I don't know anyone in the US who has ever talked about the US being more like India which has corruption, sanitation and healthcare issues. Belgium has a population the same size as Ohio so not sure how comparable that is. It's not excuses it's comparing a country with a population of ~330M to the Nordic democratic socialist countries that are often pointed to by Sanders and the like. It's real easy to promise free everything while saying the solution is more taxes on the wealthy and middle class to buy votes. If anyone will honestly slash from the budget to pay for more things feel free but that ain't happening and I'm not going to support anything that's a vote grab and will add to the debt. No problem: start by explaining why we need a military complex that is more on national defense than China, Saudi Arabia, India, France, Russia, United Kingdom, and Germany COMBINED! I bet you anything that there is a lot of fat that can be cut from the DoD. It would pay for all those prograns you so despise and then some. We could probably start paying down some debt as well if we looked at needs v. wants of the DoD This is at least the second time you've randomly quoted me in a thread where you accused me of things I've never supported. I didn't vote for Trump, I don't support outspending the next so many countries in military spending combined and I don't despise any programs. If you're going to quote and accuse me of something please have the slightest idea what you're talking about.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:42:44 GMT -5
it is far more ethnically diverse than the US, and nominally Democratic Socialist. so, that shoots down the Ethnic argument. India is far more populous, AND ethnically diverse, and it is ALSO Democratic Socialist. so, I think that settles the argument: a country can be Democratic Socialist AND ethnically diverse/populous. so that means that WE can do it too. and yeah, it really does strike me as making excuses to say otherwise. By that logic anything that has been done by any country can be done by another. The reality of actually accomplishing that is the issue. and the reality is that countries large and small, diverse and homogenous, rich and poor have adopted Democratic Socialism.
so why not us?
there is a good answer for that: because we don't want to. but that is the only real answer. the real answer is not because we are too big or diverse. that answer is boloney.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:45:07 GMT -5
not to toot Sander's horn, but he is not for unfunded mandates. he is just not a guy in favor of cutting our way to benefits.
he wants to tax the ever loving crap out of us.
give him some credit for at least being honest about it.
because a lot of people running aren't.
Trump for example.
I. D.o.n.t understand why anyone is ok with being taxed to death never claimed I was OK with it.
but I will say this: I would rather taxes go up 50% (on a relative basis) than to run $1T deficits, MT.
I KNOW that most people don't feel that way- but I think it is IMMORAL to ask our progeny to pay for our indulgences.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Aug 13, 2019 16:46:47 GMT -5
an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic. My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point. Nope. Mat leave is paid for by Unemployment Insurance, that everyone pays into. The employer hires a temp worker and it doesn't cost him anything.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 16:47:19 GMT -5
And I will most likely qualify for all kinds of stuff. But in the end, I will have the attitude of “if you can’t beat ‘em, join ‘em”. you'll be in good company. even the queen of the anarchocapitalists, Ayn Rand, took Medicare and SS, despite spending her entire life RAILING against it, and calling it immoral.
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,515
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 13, 2019 16:52:53 GMT -5
an employer-paid benefit is absolutely NOT taxpayer-funded. that's why I asked my first question. so with this on top of your first answer, now I'm more confused as to your actual opinion on the topic. My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point. you've already been exquisitely clear about your preference to hire anyone other than women of childbearing age, without any inclination to GAF if those women actually intend to bear children. so forgive me (or don't, I don't particularly GAF either) for asking if you see a problem that employers in the United States don't offer as much maternity leave as the rest of the world? I've asked the question more than once already, but apparently I need to just be blunt - do you think this is a problem? and no, I don't care that YOU were able to plan and save. the vast majority can't.
|
|
souldoubt
Senior Member
Joined: Jan 4, 2011 11:57:14 GMT -5
Posts: 2,745
|
Post by souldoubt on Aug 13, 2019 16:57:30 GMT -5
By that logic anything that has been done by any country can be done by another. The reality of actually accomplishing that is the issue. and the reality is that countries large and small, diverse and homogenous, rich and poor have adopted Democratic Socialism.
so why not us?
there is a good answer for that: because we don't want to. but that is the only real answer. the real answer is not because we are too big or diverse. that answer is boloney.
Why us? You can't tell me the people in power and those with money won't still have it in another system. Democratic socialism is being pushed by a lifelong politician who has done nothing during his years of service (unless amassing some wealth counts) who wants to spend other people's money. Like you said, at least he's honest. You can say it's baloney but no country with the wealth and economy the size of the US has made the change. As a working stiff I'd rather see politicians work on the problems we have rather than promising more freebies on the back of taxpayers. I guess the next election will decide what the voters want if Bernie gets the nod.
|
|
Miss Tequila
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 10:13:45 GMT -5
Posts: 20,602
|
Post by Miss Tequila on Aug 13, 2019 16:59:38 GMT -5
My opinion is that if you work for an employer that provides paid maternity leave, good for you. If you don’t, then you need to save and prepare. I. D.o.n.t believe in forcing an employer to pay for our life’s choices. So now an employer has to pay for a replacement and someone salary for a year? I would be hiring men and that point. you've already been exquisitely clear about your preference to hire anyone other than women of childbearing age, without any inclination to GAF if those women actually intend to bear children. so forgive me (or don't, I don't particularly GAF either) for asking if you see a problem that employers in the United States don't offer as much maternity leave as the rest of the world? I've asked the question more than once already, but apparently I need to just be blunt - do you think this is a problem? and no, I don't care that YOU were able to plan and save. the vast majority can't. No, I do not think it is a problem. I knew the rules when I had my children (I got zero paid). If I couldn’t have afforded them I would have waited to have children.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 19:01:55 GMT -5
and the reality is that countries large and small, diverse and homogenous, rich and poor have adopted Democratic Socialism.
so why not us?
there is a good answer for that: because we don't want to. but that is the only real answer. the real answer is not because we are too big or diverse. that answer is boloney.
Why us? You can't tell me the people in power and those with money won't still have it in another system. Democratic socialism is being pushed by a lifelong politician who has done nothing during his years of service (unless amassing some wealth counts) who wants to spend other people's money. Like you said, at least he's honest. You can say it's baloney but no country with the wealth and economy the size of the US has made the change. As a working stiff I'd rather see politicians work on the problems we have rather than promising more freebies on the back of taxpayers. I guess the next election will decide what the voters want if Bernie gets the nod. this is another red herring, because there has never been a country of this size and economy.
here is what bugs me about your response (which, frankly, is far more common than mine):
this was the country full of AmeriCANs. now it is the country full of AmeriCAN'Ts. it is always about what we can't do. never about what we can do.
why us? because I think we can do better than 12% poverty rates. because I think we an do better than having 2x the medical cost of ANY other nation for no better service. because I think that we can do better than having half the population with 2% of the national wealth. because, in short, I think we can do better.
is Democratic Socialism the ONLY way? no. of course not. but we have been trying "this way" for a long time, and it is not getting us where we should be, imo. we should have the longest life expectancy, and at or below average cost for healthcare, infant mortality, poverty, imprisoned populations, gun violence, spousal abuse, etc. instead we languish in the mid-30's when we are ranked.
if you are satisfied being #35, that is cool. but I am not. I never have been. and I never will be.
but as I have said before, soon it will be your problem. I am sick of people telling me what can't be done. I am moving somewhere where people believe in their country and other people.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,099
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Aug 13, 2019 19:02:41 GMT -5
PS- I am not voting for Sanders. I am a libertarian. this is not about ME. it is about what we CAN or CAN'T do as a nation.
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 13, 2019 19:46:59 GMT -5
None. When they arrived in the US, believe it or not, they actually had to sign a document stating they would never take any government aid. (Shocking, huh?) Even though they worked for many years, they weren't able to get Social Security, so my Grandpa worked until he couldn't. Fortunately, he was a good saver, and Grandma knew how to can. And, they lived in a state where, at the time, you didn't have to pay property taxes when you were a senior citizen, so they made it work. That is interesting. Was it because he was here too short earn his "points" to receive SS? And if so, did they reduce his taxes by the FICA amount or was he made to pay just for others (but not for himself)? Social security didn't start until 1935, so it is possible they didn't get social security because it didn't exist?
|
|
thyme4change
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 26, 2010 13:54:08 GMT -5
Posts: 40,401
|
Post by thyme4change on Aug 13, 2019 19:50:25 GMT -5
Why would Norwegians want to move here? On average, they would have to work harder, pay almost the same amount of taxes, pay for their health insurance, etc. The Scandinavian countries are some of the best places to live. They have the healthiest and happiest people (on average). The USA does not. That has to be fake news because socialism doesn't work. Especially when someone has no idea what socialism is.
|
|
dondub
Senior Associate
The meek shall indeed inherit the earth but only after the Visigoths are done with it.
Joined: Jan 16, 2014 19:31:06 GMT -5
Posts: 12,110
Location: Seattle
Favorite Drink: Laphroig
|
Post by dondub on Aug 13, 2019 22:13:56 GMT -5
Especially when someone has no idea what socialism is. Inconceivable! Archie...glad to see your out!😎
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 13, 2019 23:38:21 GMT -5
My Great Grand Mother XXXXX times over was born in New Jersey in 1691, She received a welfare check every week then. Went to Good will for a couple of dresses. stopped by the food bank on the way back already built home. furnished by the Government,,
Which right in line with Obama's you didn't build your anything,, the Government built everything for you,,
Sorry to see you were unable to understand Obama’s statement. I understood it perfectly, Obama's an idiot!
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Aug 13, 2019 23:45:42 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!!
|
|
chiver78
Administrator
Current Events Admin
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 13:04:45 GMT -5
Posts: 38,515
|
Post by chiver78 on Aug 14, 2019 6:42:07 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! and? not every mom wants to do that. what is it with you people that think the way YOU live your lives is the way EVERYONE has to?
|
|
AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 11:59:07 GMT -5
Posts: 31,709
Favorite Drink: Sweetwater 420
|
Post by AgeOfEnlightenmentSCP on Aug 14, 2019 8:07:52 GMT -5
So, the left thinks only white immigrants can support themselves without welfare? I'm sorry- who are the racists again?
|
|
andi9899
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Dec 6, 2011 10:22:29 GMT -5
Posts: 30,389
|
Post by andi9899 on Aug 14, 2019 9:05:27 GMT -5
So, the left thinks only white immigrants can support themselves without welfare? I'm sorry- who are the racists again? Nobody said anything even remotely close to that. This thread has been mostly conservatives telling us how their way is the only correct way and others telling them that's not really true. We get that you conservatives think that you're better than everyone else or that your way is the only way, but that doesn't make it so.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,884
|
Post by happyhoix on Aug 14, 2019 9:15:13 GMT -5
Top Trump official claims the Statue of Liberty poem refers to Europeans only.
www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-official-statue-of-liberty-poem-refers-to-europeans/ar-AAFLdLX
Makes it pretty clear who thinks we should only allow 'white' immigrants.
(The truth about the Statue of Liberty is that it was given to us by the French to celebrate the end of the civil war, which was supposed to be the end of racism in our country - that's why there are broken chains at her feet. The poem was added much later.)
|
|
swamp
Community Leader
Don't be a fool. Call me!
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 16:03:22 GMT -5
Posts: 45,310
Member is Online
|
Post by swamp on Aug 14, 2019 9:28:58 GMT -5
Here is an interesting concept, My wife was a stay at home mom, until my youngest started school!! no, it's not that interesting. It's pretty common.
|
|