CaptSMRT wrote:Grocery stores....are socialism!!!!! THE MADNESS!!!!

If they are in the "Goldilocks Zone" of Socialism...it is a good thing.

CaptSMRT wrote:Grocery stores....are socialism!!!!! THE MADNESS!!!!

You must shop at Aldi.

ratonmono wrote:Well said UMSL. The misconception of exactly what entails Socialism is pretty mind boggling. Social Security is socialism, disability is socialism, the railroad system, Homestead Act, interstate highway system, internet, all socialist programs. Too many in this country wrongly believe that socialism and communism are the same thing.

Thank you sincerely. May I call you "Rattie"?

I am 59 and saw what America was like when we had a middle class that was attainable, sustainable and the envy of the world. Taxation on greedy gojillionaires was three times what it is today. Alice Walton and her siblings would NOT be paying Food Stamp wages, forcing the dwindling middle class to supplement the poverty their indentured servant employees exist in. The Waltons are worth a third of a trillion dollars and IMO they are scum. The Koch Brothers buy elections and kill organized labor and Democracy.

You are younger, but you have studied HISTORY.

Damned if you and I won't try to lead us out of this new fucking "Gilded Age".

Where is Teddy Rooseveldt?

umslbirdie wrote:

ratonmono wrote:Well said UMSL. The misconception of exactly what entails Socialism is pretty mind boggling. Social Security is socialism, disability is socialism, the railroad system, Homestead Act, interstate highway system, internet, all socialist programs. Too many in this country wrongly believe that socialism and communism are the same thing.

Thank you sincerely. May I call you "Rattie"?

I am 59 and saw what America was like when we had a middle class that was attainable, sustainable and the envy of the world. Taxation on greedy gojillionaires was three times what it is today. Alice Walton and her siblings would NOT be paying Food Stamp wages, forcing the dwindling middle class to supplement the poverty their indentured servant employees exist in. The Waltons are worth a third of a trillion dollars and IMO they are scum. The Koch Brothers buy elections and kill organized labor and Democracy.

You are younger, but you have studied HISTORY.

Damned if you and I won't try to lead us out of this new fucking "Gilded Age".

Where is Teddy Rooseveldt?

GOD damn who isn't sick of billionaires fucking us all over for their little social shell games. I hope the Koch Brothers get diarrhea that lasts for the rest of their lives. The Walton's are a joke...why do conservatives get their panties all bunched up when a poor person gets a free drink of milk...but Walmart is taking billions out of the tax payers pockets and nobody bats an eye.

Right ON!

98% of Republican and 97% of Democrat politicians are bought and paid for by billionaire Corporate PACS whose Boards of directors see to it that Corporate Welfare is DOUBLE the welfare for poor people.
Those fucks have NO obligation to "Create Jobs". With the way they have rigged the system the past 30 years, WHY SHOULD THEY? The laws today do not hold their feet to the fire. When Capitalist used the American system to make enormous profits, they paid enormous taxes for the privilege and America SHONE! When they were taxed more justly in the 40s 50s 60s 70s and early 80s, one of the only ways to avoid paying higher taxes was to REINVEST in new projects, equipment, etc.
There has been absolutely NO motivation to do that in the decades since Trickle Down. They either sit on billions and billions like their more honest Cartel Counterparts in Mexico, or spend it on themselves, keeping just enough to bribe ( contribute) the elected officials into keeping the tax laws rigged. What the average citizen doesn't know about changes to the tax codes since Reagan's "Voodoo Economics" would put a torch and a pitchfork into their hands if they ever found out.
Target number one is Citizens United. I am ASTOUNDED that the great majority of people I ask have never heard of it or do not understand it.
Bernie says that is job number one.

This is from Ring of Fire. I believe every word is true and good for what ails America:
Bernie Sanders
Bernie is Right. We Need to Overturn Citizens United.
— July 18, 2015
Share
Share
Share
Share
Earlier this year, Bernie Sanders proposed a constitutional amendment with the goal of overturning the disastrous Supreme Court decision Citizens United. Sanders is right, we have to get rid of this decision that sells American politics to the highest bidder.

Allowing unlimited funds to flow into super PACs removes accountability from political speech and drowns out the voices of ordinary Americans, and it’s exactly what Citizens United was intended to do.

When Sanders introduced his first amendment against Citizens United in 2013, he criticized the decision:

What the Supreme Court did in Citizens United is to tell billionaires like the Koch Brothers and Sheldon Adelson, ‘You own and control Wall Street. You own and control coal companies. You own and control oil companies. Now, for a very small percentage of your wealth, we’re going to give you the opportunity to own and control the United States government. That is the essence of what Citizens United is all about. That is why this disastrous decision must be reversed.

In May, Sanders said that he would have an effective litmus test for any Supreme Court appointments he would make if elected president.

“If elected president, I will have a litmus test in terms of my nominee to be a Supreme Court justice and that nominee will say that they are going to overturn this disastrous Supreme Court decision,” Bernie said

The NFL business model is socialist, and they seem to be doing alright.

Socialism is like anything else in this world. It has pluses and minuses. The US needs to open its eyes in regards to improving education and distribution of wealth. Those are two important topics to me because they are major factors for a successful future for America. Both of those topics could use more socialist policies to improve, imo.

I'm not a socialist, at all, but to act like there are no benefits to the concept is outdated. This isn't the 1950's anymore, and America's stubborn McCarthyism needs to just stop or we will continue to fall behind in important areas compared to other "first" world countries.

As for presidential candidates I don't know who to vote for. I really don't have much faith in politicians until the public start holding them accountable. The problem is an uneducated and uninformed public. Think of the average American. Now realize half the people in the country are dumber than that.

"Democracy is the worst form of government, except all others"

The issue is that with the way we currently try a re-distribute wealth (read-gradual income taxes) is that it does nothing to actually change how society is ranked. Under the current model, the rich get taxed more but they are still the richest, while the poor get taxed less and they are still the poorest.

The way to help the poor is by guaranteeing rights-rights to everyone. IMO there are (at least) two basic rights that everyone should have that they currently don't: healthcare and public transportation. Guaranteeing more rights leads to a more productive society. You just have to walk the line where you don't guarantee too much so you get into the fallacy with communism of people not wanting to work hard because everyone is "equal."

Also, I think taxes should be done much differently. I think it should be scaled based on family size and income as it is now, but dramatically different. I don't think people who make below a certain point (say the poverty line x 1.5, thats just an estimate) should be paying any taxes. The fact that our federal government is currently taking 15% of a person's salary who makes 10k a year is just ridiculous in my opinion.

15% is just a start. Figure in FICA that's another 7.5% that is matched by your employer. Or 15% if your self employed. Then add in your state tax and personal property tax on your car and home. If that's not enough let's throw on another 9% + for sales tax if you spend what you have left over (how does charging you money if you spend some help our economy?).

Add those with gas tax, taxes on utilities, and others. I bet we pay close to 50% of what we make to the government one way or the other. If your lucky enough to be poor they will give you a small refund in April.

In the 1960 corperate tax made up 33% of our federal taxes now its down to about 10%. Our middle class was larger even with a one earner family income witch resulted in even more money flowing in.

Now with outsourcing to China, mexico, and others. Our workforce has more people looking for fewer jobs. That means lower pay for the work force.

This started in the 80s with reagon giving low interest loans to build over seas. Then he tagged out to clinton to bring in NAFTA. the working class never saw it coming.

Well said.

Hillary is better for the middle class than any Republican, but only marginally. The big banks own her like they owned Bill. Hard to blame her, with Citizens United you HAVE to find some Gijillionaires to bribe...uh, back you or ya don't stand a chance

Bernie sez eliminating CU is job number one.

I support a lot of what Bernie says, end the drug war, get rid of Citizens United, less big government bullshit, however, his whole replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy plan is a dream. Redistribution of wealth through excessive taxes is an idealistic crusade that has never worked, it only harms moderate wealth, and anyone attempting to rise up, billionaires walk right around it.

Another hopeful candidate is on the rise in the North Carolina polls ... http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2 ... exist.html

Three percentage points behind "Not Sure"? The kid must be pacing himself.

CaptSMRT wrote:I support a lot of what Bernie says, end the drug war, get rid of Citizens United, less big government bullshit, however, his whole replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy plan is a dream. Redistribution of wealth through excessive taxes is an idealistic crusade that has never worked, it only harms moderate wealth, and anyone attempting to rise up, billionaires walk right around it.

it worked wonderfully well from 1949-1980 when the Trickle Down idiocy began.

When was it better to be a middle class American-

1960 or 2010?

umslbirdie wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:I support a lot of what Bernie says, end the drug war, get rid of Citizens United, less big government bullshit, however, his whole replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy plan is a dream. Redistribution of wealth through excessive taxes is an idealistic crusade that has never worked, it only harms moderate wealth, and anyone attempting to rise up, billionaires walk right around it.

it worked wonderfully well from 1949-1980 when the Trickle Down idiocy began.

When was it better to be a middle class American-

1960 or 2010?

Neither - it was best in 1992.

Let's not gloss over the fact that from 1945 until the late 50s/early 60s we were enjoying an economic boom as a result of the post-WWII global reconstruction. Much of the economic success of the 60s and early 70s was attributable to the space race and military spending from the Vietnam War. I lived through the late 70s and when all of the space and military spending dried up, so did the economy. I guess you forgot about the gas lines and exploding unemployment and 22% mortgages.

Since the 1980s, when business was allowed to expand organically and actually create jobs based on viable and sustainable consumerism, the economy and the wealth of the middle class was actually allowed to grow. While obviously some were left behind, many below the poverty line, that unfortunate consequence was a result of lingering historical socioeconomic repression and a culture of government dependency much more so than newly minted economic policies. When 2008 rolled around and federal policies began focusing much more on government growth and wealth redistribution through so-called entitlement programs, a greater and greater portion of the general population became more and more dependent on the people they elected to represent them for basic living expenses. Which is exactly what the liberal politicians advocating big government wanted. Economic growth was replaced with government growth, and unemployment was replaced with under employment. While the current regime is happy to report unemployment figures in the 4s, the real unemployment/underemployment figure is more likely in the 20s. Full employment has been replaced with unsustainable part-time employment and virtually limitless unemployment benefit dependency.

I consider myself an independent, but I am old school, as in founding fathers old school. The federal government was not created to dominate our lives and foster economic dependency. It was designed to fight many of the same interferences it now enforces; the intentionally thin layer of rules and enforcement have been replaced by ever growing, ever interfering federalism bordering on socialism. The growth of government must be stopped if the private sector is ever going to be able to return to the entrepreneurially driven economic prosperity enjoyed during the 1980s and early 1990s.

No society in the history of civilization has ever afforded prosperity of the economically disadvantaged by bringing the wealthy down a few pegs. That is the very definition of re-distribution of wealth and it simply doesn't work. People trying to get ahead, and especially people trying to catch up, will never break the cycle of poverty with handouts. They need opportunity, the opportunity that only a strong entrepreneurially driven economy can provide. Big government will never provide the kind of opportunity that much maligned "big business" (which is actually now an ecosystem of small businesses thanks to the conservatively principled Reagan economy) can provide.

[climbs down from soapbox]

Nicely written, but do you have a scrap of data to back any of this up?

Sure there were gas lines and inflation, BUT how was it worse than the foreclosure and reverse mortgage hell we live in now?

It wasn't.

What would a minimum wage job afford you then as compared to now?

When we forced those who profited grossly from our system to actually pay a proportionate gross level of taxes...we had interstate highways, a Man on the moon, a Vietnam war and a War on Poverty. And the deficit was tiny.

America was a much better "neighborhood" to LIVE in then...

umslbirdie wrote:Nicely written, but do you have a scrap of data to back any of this up?

Exactly the same amount as you did. This turned into a debate, not a research project.

umslbirdie wrote:Sure there were gas lines and inflation, BUT how was it worse than the foreclosure and reverse mortgage hell we live in now?

It wasn't.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man. The former was caused by disastrous economic policies and an crushing inability to react to changing world events. The other was caused by "irrational exuberance" and people believing that rapidly growing prosperity would last forever. Prudent and rational people didn't overextend themselves. Borrowing only what you can afford to repay and saving for a rainy day never go out of style. Your anger and disdain should be directed at the current administration for allowing the banks to get off easy with their inane stimulus and bank rescue packages. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and these banks didn't learn a damned thing thanks to Uncle Barack.

umslbirdie wrote:What would a minimum wage job afford you then as compared to now?

To answer your question, about the same. But, again, the point of your question is misguided. When has minimum wage work ever be the gateway to a comfortable existence? Instead of worrying about paying a guy flipping burgers $15 an hour, how about maybe we focus on how to provide college education and job skills that allow people to contribute more so they can earn more. Just because someone can't live on $9 an hour doesn't mean what they're doing is worth more. Pay a guy $15 an hour to flip burgers and you'll either have $8 Big Macs (i.e. - runaway inflation) or robots making burgers (i.e. - more people on unemployment, perpetuating the government dependency).

umslbirdie wrote:When we forced those who profited grossly from our system to actually pay a proportionate gross level of taxes...we had interstate highways, a Man on the moon, a Vietnam war and a War on Poverty. And the deficit was tiny.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not really sure how you define "profiting grossly." You will never be able to convince me that someone who has ascended to the top of their profession and become an exceptionally high wage earner will ever "deserve" to pay 91% of what they earn to the Federal government. That's a 9% separation from indentured servitude. And the deficit has grown (as has the size of government, and that's no coincidence) under every liberal administration except Clinton in the last 50 years. Most conservative administrations have managed to slow or even reverse its growth. You can't pay so-called "entitlement benefits" with a credit card without any idea of how your going to pay the bill except for borrowing more money.

You Trump haters are WRONG again as usual!


From Rasmussen Reports:

Majority of GOP voters say Trump will be the nominee

Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year, with 25% who say it’s Very Likely. That compares to 27% who felt a Trump nomination was likely two months ago when he formally announced his presidential bid, a finding that included just nine percent (9%) who said it was Very Likely.

Trump is also #1 in Missouri! Those of you who choose a bald decrepit corpse who looks like a serial killer must be Hawks fans because they prefer Sanders in Chicago! HA HA! OWNED!

Owned? I swear to fuck if I ever meet you I am giving you an Atomic Wedgie.

You fools who keep counting Trump out keep getting proven WRONG! Even the DailyKos admits he could go ALL THE WAY!

Trump is NO joke

He only toyed with running for President in 2012, undoubtedly to get more publicity for his name.

When he hinted at a run this year, no one believed him. Then he did the unthinkable, he entered the race.

First he called Mexicans rapists - his polls went up
Then he said John McCain was not a war hero - his polls went up.
Then he implied Megan Kelly was on the rag - his polls went up.

Yesterday he drew 20,000 in Alabama, the highest of any Republican candidate, and almost reaching Bernie Sanders' high.

Now we have the latest poll hot off the presses.

Trump 32%
Bush 16%
Carson 8%

When only cast against Bush and Carson:

Trump 44%
Bush 29%
Carson 25%

Some of you relish Trump as the Republican nominee. You figure he is easy to beat. Nevermind the fact he can finance his campaign and have money left over.

Trump is not a flash in the pan like Bachmann, Perry, Cain and Gingrich were in 2012 each taking their turn at the top.

Trump is a master showman and he knows how to put on a good show.

Now it is too early to know how he would fare in the general election, say against the Democratic frontrunner, Hillary Clinton.

In a recent Quinnipiac poll Trump beats Clinton in Florida - 43% to 41%

Everyone assumed earlier this year it would be a Clinton/Bush race just like they assumed in early 2007 it would be a Clinton/Giuliani race.

If it is a Sanders/Trump race, we will have one of the most stark contrasts in American presidential election history.

Time will tell.

MissouriMook wrote:

umslbirdie wrote:

CaptSMRT wrote:I support a lot of what Bernie says, end the drug war, get rid of Citizens United, less big government bullshit, however, his whole replace hydrocarbons with renewable energy plan is a dream. Redistribution of wealth through excessive taxes is an idealistic crusade that has never worked, it only harms moderate wealth, and anyone attempting to rise up, billionaires walk right around it.

it worked wonderfully well from 1949-1980 when the Trickle Down idiocy began.

When was it better to be a middle class American-

1960 or 2010?

Neither - it was best in 1992.

Let's not gloss over the fact that from 1945 until the late 50s/early 60s we were enjoying an economic boom as a result of the post-WWII global reconstruction. Much of the economic success of the 60s and early 70s was attributable to the space race and military spending from the Vietnam War. I lived through the late 70s and when all of the space and military spending dried up, so did the economy. I guess you forgot about the gas lines and exploding unemployment and 22% mortgages.

Since the 1980s, when business was allowed to expand organically and actually create jobs based on viable and sustainable consumerism, the economy and the wealth of the middle class was actually allowed to grow. While obviously some were left behind, many below the poverty line, that unfortunate consequence was a result of lingering historical socioeconomic repression and a culture of government dependency much more so than newly minted economic policies. When 2008 rolled around and federal policies began focusing much more on government growth and wealth redistribution through so-called entitlement programs, a greater and greater portion of the general population became more and more dependent on the people they elected to represent them for basic living expenses. Which is exactly what the liberal politicians advocating big government wanted. Economic growth was replaced with government growth, and unemployment was replaced with under employment. While the current regime is happy to report unemployment figures in the 4s, the real unemployment/underemployment figure is more likely in the 20s. Full employment has been replaced with unsustainable part-time employment and virtually limitless unemployment benefit dependency.

I consider myself an independent, but I am old school, as in founding fathers old school. The federal government was not created to dominate our lives and foster economic dependency. It was designed to fight many of the same interferences it now enforces; the intentionally thin layer of rules and enforcement have been replaced by ever growing, ever interfering federalism bordering on socialism. The growth of government must be stopped if the private sector is ever going to be able to return to the entrepreneurially driven economic prosperity enjoyed during the 1980s and early 1990s.

No society in the history of civilization has ever afforded prosperity of the economically disadvantaged by bringing the wealthy down a few pegs. That is the very definition of re-distribution of wealth and it simply doesn't work. People trying to get ahead, and especially people trying to catch up, will never break the cycle of poverty with handouts. They need opportunity, the opportunity that only a strong entrepreneurially driven economy can provide. Big government will never provide the kind of opportunity that much maligned "big business" (which is actually now an ecosystem of small businesses thanks to the conservatively principled Reagan economy) can provide.

[climbs down from soapbox]

Not true in any sense. This country did in the late 1800's-early 1900s. The robber barons of the gilded age were brought down more than a few pegs both through legislation by reform-minded politicians and hard work by labor unions that literally had to fight to get what was owed them. In order for the middle class to continue to flourish, the wealthy have to give up something. History is full of examples of the wealthiest giving up power/resources (by use of law and/or arms) in order to redistribute wealth.
It's not handouts that the working and middle class need it's a more fair system to work with. The last 30+ years we've been handing too much back to the wealthy and at whose expense? Make no mistake wealth distribution is real and it has been being distributed nowhere but upwards for a long time now.

JesusNEVERexisted wrote:You Trump haters are WRONG again as usual!


From Rasmussen Reports:

Majority of GOP voters say Trump will be the nominee

Our latest national telephone survey finds that 57% of Likely Republican Voters now think Trump is likely to be the Republican presidential nominee next year, with 25% who say it’s Very Likely. That compares to 27% who felt a Trump nomination was likely two months ago when he formally announced his presidential bid, a finding that included just nine percent (9%) who said it was Very Likely.

Trump is also #1 in Missouri! Those of you who choose a bald decrepit corpse who looks like a serial killer must be Hawks fans because they prefer Sanders in Chicago! HA HA! OWNED!

But what did Newsmax have to say about it?

Here's how I look at every option in every election I've been old enough to vote in (22 minute full episode):

[youtube][/youtube]

ratonmono wrote: But what did Newsmax have to say about it?

It's Rasmussen Reports and DailyKos gloating about Trump! OWNED!

Here is the Donald Trump bandwagon....hop on while there is still room.

MissouriMook wrote:

umslbirdie wrote:Nicely written, but do you have a scrap of data to back any of this up?

Exactly the same amount as you did. This turned into a debate, not a research project.

umslbirdie wrote:Sure there were gas lines and inflation, BUT how was it worse than the foreclosure and reverse mortgage hell we live in now?

It wasn't.

Well, that's just like your opinion, man. The former was caused by disastrous economic policies and an crushing inability to react to changing world events. The other was caused by "irrational exuberance" and people believing that rapidly growing prosperity would last forever. Prudent and rational people didn't overextend themselves. Borrowing only what you can afford to repay and saving for a rainy day never go out of style. Your anger and disdain should be directed at the current administration for allowing the banks to get off easy with their inane stimulus and bank rescue packages. Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it, and these banks didn't learn a damned thing thanks to Uncle Barack.

umslbirdie wrote:What would a minimum wage job afford you then as compared to now?

To answer your question, about the same. But, again, the point of your question is misguided. When has minimum wage work ever be the gateway to a comfortable existence? Instead of worrying about paying a guy flipping burgers $15 an hour, how about maybe we focus on how to provide college education and job skills that allow people to contribute more so they can earn more. Just because someone can't live on $9 an hour doesn't mean what they're doing is worth more. Pay a guy $15 an hour to flip burgers and you'll either have $8 Big Macs (i.e. - runaway inflation) or robots making burgers (i.e. - more people on unemployment, perpetuating the government dependency).

umslbirdie wrote:When we forced those who profited grossly from our system to actually pay a proportionate gross level of taxes...we had interstate highways, a Man on the moon, a Vietnam war and a War on Poverty. And the deficit was tiny.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I'm not really sure how you define "profiting grossly." You will never be able to convince me that someone who has ascended to the top of their profession and become an exceptionally high wage earner will ever "deserve" to pay 91% of what they earn to the Federal government. That's a 9% separation from indentured servitude. And the deficit has grown (as has the size of government, and that's no coincidence) under every liberal administration except Clinton in the last 50 years. Most conservative administrations have managed to slow or even reverse its growth. You can't pay so-called "entitlement benefits" with a credit card without any idea of how your going to pay the bill except for borrowing more money.

Conservatives have a far worse record than liberals when it comes to the deficit.

"So we will ask, “What if Reagan and the Bushes had balanced their own budgets?” And what if Clinton and Obama had taxed the same and spent the same as they actually did?

The answer is that the National Debt would now be lower by $13.5 trillion! So that’s the Republican National Debt — according to their own standard of balanced budgets.

It’s quite easy to check these calculations (see this spreadsheet). They go like this: When Reagan took office the debt was $1 trillion. When he left it was $2.86 trillion. So $1.86 trillion for him. Then Bush-I added $1.55 trillion. Total so far: $3.4 trillion. Then Clinton took over.

Now the national debt is like a mortgage, and so the bigger it is, the more interest must be paid on it. Without the extra Reagan-Bush $3.4 trillion, there would have been a few hundred billion less in interest on the debt every year under Clinton. That interest adds another $2.3 trillion to the Reagan-Bush debt. Then Bush II increased it by $6.1 trillion to $11.8 trillion. And interest on that has been increasing the debt under Obama. The total Reagan-Bushes debt is now $13.5 trillion.

Why this matters
Supply-side economics is outrageously dishonest. The supply-siders didn’t even mind conning their own man Reagan. The tax-cut “theory” only actually applied to the rich. So the plan was to cut tax rates for the rich in half, which they did. To get this through they had to cut taxes for the middle class some too, but they counted on inflation pushing the middle class back into higher tax brackets. But cutting the top bracket had a permanent effect because there is no higher bracket to get pushed into.

So not only was cutting taxes to raise money crazy, it was just a deception to cut taxes for the richest and then use the deficits to force cuts in services for the middle class and the poor. The Republicans have almost all gone over to the supply side now, and many, like Reagan, have been brainwashed into believing it. G.W. Bush claimed he would “retire nearly $1 trillion in debt over the next four years. This will be the largest debt reduction ever achieved by any nation at any time.” I think he actually believed that.

When the Voodoo started, that’s exactly when the debt went out of control. And 20 out of 20 budgets can’t be an accident. Especially when you consider that Clinton was handed a Voodoo budget headed in the wrong direction, stopped that, turned it around and ended up with the debt reduced from 66% to 58% of GDP."

Voodoo Economics is the single biggest reason we are drowning in debt. And we have the so called Conservatives to, ahem, THANK for it.