Wow, your post is now three times longer than the original version!
Faith writes:
Can you name any position of the Democratic party that is socialist?
If you mean an official Dem Party platform statement, probably not. But all the Democrats running for President have expressed some degree or other of socialist views,...
Besides Bernie Sanders, who I've also criticized, who?
...and I would assume most of them are playing down the extent to which they hold them.
Who? And why would you assume that?
And by socialist views I mean taxing the stuffing out of everybody though especially "the rich" to pay for extravagantly expensive programs that no amount of taxation could pay for anyway.
The Democrats only want to do what is already done in Europe and Canada. Somehow these countries are paying for their social programs, so why are you arguing these programs are "extravagantly expensive"?
Programs that would destroy the oil business and other such businesses, entitlement programs etc.
What new or enhanced programs are you referring to, or are you just making this up?
Just having a bona fide Communist on the list is enough to make the point.l Yes, Sanders.
Sanders is a socialist, not a communist.
What we do know about the Republican party is that they believe that giving the most breaks to the people at the top of the economic ladder is the best way to create a thriving economy, and that the benefits provided to the rich will trickle down to the rest of the population.
Yes that is true and it is how America became prosperous in the first place.
Trickle down is a real phenomenon but an extremely minor and marginal one. The rich can only buy so many mansions and yachts and expensive vacations. The rest of the money they just stockpile for their progeny. A penthouse in one of the new skyscrapers in New York City now goes for more than $200 million. $20 million dollar condos in these skyscrapers are going like hotcakes. Why do you think there are so many people with so much more money than the rich had in the past? Is it because they're just working harder than past generations of the rich? Or is government giving them a leg up?
Yes, America became prosperous, but who was it in America who became prosperous? It was those with the wealth necessary for influencing government to grant them special treatment in the form of tax laws and favorable legislation.
The Left seems to have some kind of unrealistic idea about what is possible, but the Capitalist system is the best that has ever existed and it has worked amazingly well to spread the wealth, while socialism creates poverty instead.
If by socialism you mean public ownership of business and industry then we agree. But if by socialism you mean social programs like Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and safety net programs then you are defining socialism incorrectly.
As you eek by on your meager income you might ask yourself how trickle down is working for you. If Republican policies are so beneficial for the country, why aren't you benefiting?
I AM benefiting. I have a really nice apartment that is rent subsidized, and I have all the food and medical help I need.
I'm glad to hear that but a little surprised. Just a little while ago in this thread weren't you complaining about how dire your financial situation was? Ah, yes, here it is,
Message 4721:
Faith in Message 4721 writes:
I truly wish I could but I am one of the people who need the help unfortunately and due to physical disability couldn't work even if there were jobs I could do. I have an income of $420 from SS, plus rent relief, and that's all. I daydream about ways to make money,...
So a little over a month ago you said "I daydream about ways to make money," but now you're saying you don't need more money. Apparently the severity of your financial situation depends upon the point you're making at the time.
And isn't government subsidizing your rent? Isn't Social Security providing your income? Isn't Medicare providing your healthcare? All your income and benefits come from entitlement programs that are a priority for Democrats and that Republicans keep threatening to cut. You were already receiving these benefits under Obama and maybe before, so why do you feel you're benefiting from current Republican policies?
And why do you think the country is doing so well? The statistics say we have very low unemployment and a robust economy, yet incomes are barely rising and the poor remain poor. More people have jobs, but look at the low quality of the jobs they have, so low that many have to have more than one job. This is not how one would picture a prosperous country. Current Republican policies are good for the wealthy few, not everyone else.
AND I feel that even what I get comes from a fund that is going to bankrupt the country eventually.
By law Social Security funds come from Social Security taxes, not the general tax fund. Social Security cannot bankrupt the country. It is financially unsound at present, and benefits will be cut by 25% beginning around 2036 if something isn't done.
The reason for Social Security's financial troubles is our low birth rate, currently at 1.8. The break-even rate is 2.1. We must aggressively recruit immigrants to make up the shortfall, else Social Security will eventually become insolvent. We need only look at Japan where 1/3 of the population is over 60 to see our future. The figure is currently 15% in the US, but we're catching up rapidly.
I'm grateful to have it of course but there's something wrong with how the Left thinks there is an unlimited source of money when there isn't.
The left doesn't think that. You just keep accusing them of thinking that, and when you try to support it you make many untrue claims.
Even if you took away all the money legitimately earned by the rich you couldn't balance the budget.
This is well known. The rich shouldn't be asked to balance the budget, only to pay their fair share. They pay far less than they should because Congress has voted them beneficial tax laws.
For example, Mitt Romney pays 20% in taxes on his millions in income because of tax laws that allow him to funnel his short terms gains into funds that magically transform them into long term gains, all legal. Why shouldn't Mitt be subject to the same short term gains of up to 37% like the rest of us? The answer is that Republican lawmakers don't think people like him should have to, so they pass laws making magical tax funds legal.
Congress has a long history of passing legislation that greatly benefits the already rich. When the railroads were being built Congress passed legislation granting the railroads millions of acres of public land. The railroads either developed the land or sold it as a means of funding construction of their lines, instead of taking on debt. This immense largesse was justified by the argument that connecting the country by rail was in the national interest, which it was, but that was no reason to also make it obnoxiously profitable. This approach to congressional legislation created the class of people known as the robber barons during the latter half of the 19th century.
Congress is creating a new class of robber barons today by returning to these kinds of practices. Congress argues (as Coolidge once did when he said, "The business of America is business.") that creating a healthy business environment is good for the nation. And it is, but Congress's has targeted their efforts in such a way that they do far more to benefit the already wealthy, not businesses. Because of this the wealthy have grown incredibly more wealthy while the rest of us, the vast majority of us, are about where we have always been financially.
--Percy
Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God...
™ Version 4.2
(1)