Go back and read my exact words, I accept your apology in advance.
"Well if it does come down to that, looks like I will be forced to hold my nose and vote for Trump. "
Lol, you do not like to admit you are wrong, do you? If it comes down to Sanders period. Don't care who the VP is. Just read every word I said and admit your wrong or not, I really don't care. lol
So can anyone tell me where to find a successful operating socialist system that is not run by an elitist group of some kind ?
Can anyone tell me where to find a successful operating free-market system that is not run by an elitist group of some kind?
Can anyone tell me where to find any political system that is not run by elites? By elites by I mean the definition that political sociologists would use.
Think carefully about the response. American voter ignorance of political systems lead to several invasions and occupations that lead to large numbers innocent civilian deaths. Also dead and maimed American soldiers for dubious causes, but hey, ya gotta throw some of your fellow citizens under the bus, no cierto?
They generally strike me as principled (but wrongheaded), not babies who will reflexively run to vote for Trump when AOC is mentioned (as an impossible VP choice).
I said I would not vote for Sanders regardless of who the VP is. You are the one who makes these assumptions.
I will go ahead and post my exact quote to save you the trouble:
"No because he is a Democratic Socialist ideologue and she agrees with him and I don't. It is that simple. Not all of us are identity obsessed."
They generally strike me as principled (but wrongheaded), not babies who will reflexively run to vote for Trump when AOC is mentioned (as an impossible VP choice).
please be advised one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest person on the planet operates a marxian/marxist control system
Russia is no longer considered a Communist/Marxist state - since about 1991. Putin's control system has nothing to do with Karl Marx; it's pretty much his own take on authoritarianism.
We're all in this together, like it or not. Income inequality has gotten truly obscene thanks to virtually unbridled Capitalism and must be addressed. It will be addressed - one way or another - eventually. I'd prefer it done in controlled manner rather than with pitchforks. Health care and profit are mutually exclusive; that seems obvious on its face to me, but apparently isn't to a lot of people. Our mission should be to improve the lot of as many people as possible and minimize the concentration of unimaginable wealth in the hands of a ruling elite. If that makes me a socialist, I'm proud to be one, thanks.
please be advised one of the wealthiest if not the wealthiest person on the planet operates a marxian/marxist control system
So can anyone tell me where to find a successful operating socialist system that is not run by an elitist group of some kind ?
socialism/communism is gaining popularity mostly because it's trotted out by authority figures (priests, poets and professors) and there's very little rigor or examination of its outcomes or alternatives
it's a fairly easy sale especially if you don't have an intellectually honest conversation (or if you're just hearing a limited discussion)
the same could be said for any other type of authoritarian social organization
left/right doesn't really matter, it's the old idea that a tiny elite can best order society and the economy by design, their design
usually you'll hear someone rail on a problem or problems (manufactured or legitimate) until it literally overwhelms the masses to the point that they'll accept almost any solution
and if that solution involves the concentration of power to achieve some sort of utopian prophecy it opens the door for...
"Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies—totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms."
unwinding these types of political arrangements can be difficult and include a lot of bloodshed and suffering
we should be inquisitive about better outcomes and use logic and reason to get there or at least be open to it
The reason why background and lifestyle matters much more to Democratic-Socialist or Socialist candidates than other philosophies or parties is because Socialism is the only philosophy that is asking or more accurately demanding through force and coercion to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform ergo you cannot or at least should not ask something of your future constituents that you are not asking of yourself. Other ideologies and parties including the Democratic party may have the end result of lowering lifestyles, but it is not supposedly intentional and part of their platform, quite the contrary, they all espouse to improve all of our lives as unrealistic as that may be therefore their lifestyles extravagant as they may be are irrelevant to political discussion and is only in the realm of whether you find it personally distasteful or not. I have always maintained that if you are a Socialist candidate you should sleep on dirt floors because somewhere in the world others have to and you are proposing to increase that number.
The Republicans are doing far more to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform than the social-democrats.
Putting people in a position of having to take employment at wages too low to to escape poverty, in order to keep from starving to death, is coercion. Cutting social security lowers the lifestyle (and life expectancy) of a large part of the population, and is stealing. Selling off public land that protects ecosystems, wildlife populations for hunting, and natural beauty for tourism lowers people's lifestyle. Cutting air and water quality standards impacts health. You seem to claim that it is better because theses are not supposedly intentional. I say they are intentional and in any case are far more consequential because they have much greater impact on many more people.
Social democrats or democratic socialists, your pick, don't want to eliminate disparity, they want to narrow the gap so more people can live healthy secure lives.
My personal view is that the government should have goals of maximizing their revenue to spend on programs of value to the country and maximizing median wealth. To do that, they need a healthy but not excessively concentrated economy. The FSU communist system got it wrong by concentrating the control to the point where everyone suffered from the lack of production. So yeah, I'm all in favour of taxing companies and the rich as much as possible without leading to an economic decline. I'm also in favour of a strong government role in dampening out the swings in the economic cycle, strong oversight so people don't rort the system, and government looking out for interests like minimizing pollution that are not well managed by the capitalist economy.
I'm more than happy to sleep on my bed, thanks, and if you want to spend more of your money on a more comfortable bed, that's fine. I would also like to see more people able to afford a decent bed and libertarianism isn't going to fix the fact they can't.
I did say supposedly so I realize some of it is intentional though it is interesting you only mentioned the Republican party completely absolving the Democrats, hmm. Anyway whether intentional or not they are either lying or just incorrect in their overall results of the policy positions, but they are not telling you that you have to make extreme sacrifices for the overall good which brings me to the second point that other than this point we are actually having two different discussions. My point was if demanding sacrifice, demonizing exceptionalism, wealth and capitalism itself is quite blatantly part of your platform and ideology even to the point of declaring billionaires should not exist, you might not want to be a millionaire with three houses, that is really it in a nutshell. Lie to us and tell us the system is great, we can either believe them or not that is our prerogative, but when your message is greed is good you are not being hypocritical living a lavish lifestyle.
As far as the rest and the merits, I am just going to be basic because that is all my cold heart and small brain is capable of:
Regular Income
Tax Rate (now, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (future, single filers)
Bernie Sanders Tax Rate (Plus Avg. State Tax and other taxes)
$0 to $9,275
10%
12.20%
18.60%
$9,275 to $37,650
15%
17.20%
23.60%
What we will do — what we will do is have a four percent tax on income exempting the first $29,000," he told a cheering crowd. "All right, good. You — you’re better at arithmetic than I am. Because what that means is if you are that average family in the middle who makes $60,000 a year, that means we’re going to tax you on $31,000 at four percent.”
There are a few problems with this proposal:
Is the $29,000 exemption for couples then? What is the exemption, if any, for singles? Is it safe to assume that exemption would be $14,500 (half of what he proposed for families)?
Bernie has said this would be a tax increase, so everyone would pay four percent on everything they make over the threshold he established, although that isn't even very clear. Even with that exemption, that raises taxes on the poor and middle class, the very people Sanders has said he aims to protect.
Not only that but this proposal runs counter intuitive to his $15/hour minimum wage proposal. If he wanted everyone to make, at a minimum, $15/hour or $31,200 a year, even the so-called "working poor" would have their taxes increased.
A single person making $31,200 with an exemption of $14,500 would still have to pay four percent more on $16,700, which is almost $700 a year. That's a lot of money, especially for someone making minimum wage.
At least he is being honest, he is telling low to middle income people that they are going to have to make sacrifices too for the "privilege" of shitty health care for those who did not have it before and shitty healthcare to replace the good albeit expensive health care they currently have if they need. My only point is that if you are a champion for the destitute and unemployed which is really the target market here to lift up, it will require great sacrifice from those that currently work and pay taxes. Optics matter much more when you are a warrior for the forgotten destitute. Dirt floors is obvious slight hyperbole and proverbial, but cmon Bernie you can at least walk the walk. I live an extremely frugal and somewhat more independent than your average bear lifestyle, grow my own food, do not have central heating and air, do not produce hardly any waste through composting and feeding excess to the animals, drive only when essential to my job that is nearby, my wife is stay at home and NEVER (not kidding) leaves the house, we do not have a fancy home, cars, nice furniture or anything new at all, we wear the same clothes for years and generally look like shit, but we are happy. We do not live beyond our means or produce a large carbon footprint. In other words, we walk the walk. All I am saying is that of course all potential leaders should as well, but there is an extra smather of hypocrisy and insolence when your main emphasis is sacrifice for the greater good and rich people are bad as you enjoy the lifestyle of a millionaire with 3 homes. That is really all that I am saying.
As for the specifics as to whether this policy will help the economy overall and be ultimately better than present system, I am not a wonk perhaps Lazy or Miami will eviscerate your points, but that is not where my mind is at with this discussion.
The reason why background and lifestyle matters much more to Democratic-Socialist or Socialist candidates than other philosophies or parties is because Socialism is the only philosophy that is asking or more accurately demanding through force and coercion to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform ergo you cannot or at least should not ask something of your future constituents that you are not asking of yourself. Other ideologies and parties including the Democratic party may have the end result of lowering lifestyles, but it is not supposedly intentional and part of their platform, quite the contrary, they all espouse to improve all of our lives as unrealistic as that may be therefore their lifestyles extravagant as they may be are irrelevant to political discussion and is only in the realm of whether you find it personally distasteful or not. I have always maintained that if you are a Socialist candidate you should sleep on dirt floors because somewhere in the world others have to and you are proposing to increase that number.
The Republicans are doing far more to lower the lifestyles of a large segment of the population as an integral part of their platform than the social-democrats.
Putting people in a position of having to take employment at wages too low to to escape poverty, in order to keep from starving to death, is coercion. Cutting social security lowers the lifestyle (and life expectancy) of a large part of the population, and is stealing. Selling off public land that protects ecosystems, wildlife populations for hunting, and natural beauty for tourism lowers people's lifestyle. Cutting air and water quality standards impacts health. You seem to claim that it is better because theses are not supposedly intentional. I say they are intentional and in any case are far more consequential because they have much greater impact on many more people.
Social democrats or democratic socialists, your pick, don't want to eliminate disparity, they want to narrow the gap so more people can live healthy secure lives.
My personal view is that the government should have goals of maximizing their revenue to spend on programs of value to the country and maximizing median wealth. To do that, they need a healthy but not excessively concentrated economy. The FSU communist system got it wrong by concentrating the control to the point where everyone suffered from the lack of production. So yeah, I'm all in favour of taxing companies and the rich as much as possible without leading to an economic decline. I'm also in favour of a strong government role in dampening out the swings in the economic cycle, strong oversight so people don't rort the system, and government looking out for interests like minimizing pollution that are not well managed by the capitalist economy.
I'm more than happy to sleep on my bed, thanks, and if you want to spend more of your money on a more comfortable bed, that's fine. I would also like to see more people able to afford a decent bed and libertarianism isn't going to fix the fact they can't.
But.. but.. but.. maybe after millennia of trying the bloody alternatives, maybe we actually want it this way.. it is not coercion at all but self-preservation for the sake of the cheese in all of us. Cheese is a fleeting ephemeral thing. You must take it when it is ripe. At the cusp between its budding potential and waning promise.. These are wisdoms behind which is much frustration and vain searching for fulfilment. Cheese is an art form. You should come and try it.
I was joking, being sarcastic, of course. I should have used a cheesy grin!
I know you were.. I was just playing to the guys in the gallery. (All two of them.)
