Again, Where Are The Checks?

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by oeb11

so sad - to live a life of delusion and religiosity of the marxist idiotology.
And that Hatred of Trump still occupies teh 'minds' of the DPST mnions.



Look at Venezuela - but blind obedience to marxist idiotology prevents the deluded from recognizing FACTS and TRUTH!

With all the natural resources in the USA, we would be successful in any form of government...

The majority of our life now is socialistic....

by Miles Mogulescu | Feb 7, 2019 | Blog | 38 comments

During Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, many of the old, white, Republican Senators and Representatives must have gotten more exercise than in weeks, jumping to their feet to applaud almost every sentence of the endless rhetoric.

One of the moments that got the loudest applause was Trump’s attempt to blame progressive Democrats for the problems of the current Venezuelan government, proclaiming the U.S. “will never be a socialist country” to a loud standing ovation from Republicans (and too many Democrats) and chants of “USA, USA, USA.”

Like so much of Trump’s speech, the statement was false. I have news for the Donald: The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy, such as the U.K., Germany, France, and Japan—is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

By this defintion, Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.

The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise "socialist" programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.

Stripped of the Red-baiting and name-calling, the real debate isn’t between capitalism vs. socialism, but about the appropriate balance between the two.

Conservatives want to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits and reduce the numbers who qualify, while progressives want to increase and expand these programs. Many progressives want to move towards a Medicare system covering all Americans, not just those over 65 (“Medicare for All”) while centrist Democrats want to protect the ACA which is a hybrid between private insurance and government insurance and regulation, and conservatives want to go back to the all-private system which pre-dated the ACA.

The government already supports higher education (that’s socialism) but progressives want to make a public college education free or debt-free. Conservatives support government subsidies for agriculture and the oil energy (that’s socialism) while many progressives believe this is “reverse welfare” for the rich and want to reduce them.

[bf0082]

Originally Posted by Gotyour6

How about the green jobs for the pipeline workers

They could have installed more windmills that froze in Texas

Come on, Man

The pipe layers in Canada are doing fine, collecting enhanced unemployment while waiting for their next union project, just as they would be doing after completing the pipeline...

Such spin people put on things is absolutely amazing, the trump truths will never cease to amaze

[winn dixie]

severe tds

[WTF]

Originally Posted by bf0082

With all the natural resources in the USA, we would be successful in any form of government...

The majority of our life now is socialistic....

by Miles Mogulescu | Feb 7, 2019 | Blog | 38 comments

During Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, many of the old, white, Republican Senators and Representatives must have gotten more exercise than in weeks, jumping to their feet to applaud almost every sentence of the endless rhetoric.

One of the moments that got the loudest applause was Trump’s attempt to blame progressive Democrats for the problems of the current Venezuelan government, proclaiming the U.S. “will never be a socialist country” to a loud standing ovation from Republicans (and too many Democrats) and chants of “USA, USA, USA.”

Like so much of Trump’s speech, the statement was false. I have news for the Donald: The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy, such as the U.K., Germany, France, and Japan—is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

By this defintion, Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.

The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise "socialist" programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.

Stripped of the Red-baiting and name-calling, the real debate isn’t between capitalism vs. socialism, but about the appropriate balance between the two.

Conservatives want to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits and reduce the numbers who qualify, while progressives want to increase and expand these programs. Many progressives want to move towards a Medicare system covering all Americans, not just those over 65 (“Medicare for All”) while centrist Democrats want to protect the ACA which is a hybrid between private insurance and government insurance and regulation, and conservatives want to go back to the all-private system which pre-dated the ACA.

The government already supports higher education (that’s socialism) but progressives want to make a public college education free or debt-free. Conservatives support government subsidies for agriculture and the oil energy (that’s socialism) while many progressives believe this is “reverse welfare” for the rich and want to reduce them.

This is worth repeating.

My friends on the right could raise their political IQ by 20 points if they could understand what this article actually means.

Heck it would not hurt folks on the left to understand what is really going on....maybe we'd have better solutions than name calling.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by bf0082

Like so much of Trump’s speech, the statement was false. I have news for the Donald: The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy, such as the U.K., Germany, France, and Japan—is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

Originally Posted by WTF

My friends on the right could raise their political IQ by 20 points if they could understand what this article actually means.

I have attempted for years to enlighten my right honorable friend, What The Fuck (WTF), that small government, lower taxes and a nonunionized workforce result in greater prosperity for the majority of people. I have provided the examples of Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. Kicking out petrostates and small places, these countries have lower taxes and government spending as a % of GDP than other developed countries, but higher per capita GDP and higher median disposable income. True, enlightenment on this particular matter will not raise my right honorable friend's IQ by 20 points, as he must already be rather smart having voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. But sadly he continues to live in ignorance on this particular point.

And as to the right honorable gentleman bf0082, there actually is no correlation that I am aware of between unionization of the workforce and prosperity. I just said that to annoy him. However, the countries mentioned in his post, all of which have more socialistic systems than the USA, are also significantly poorer than the USA. They have GDP's per capita adjusted for purchasing power from 14% (Germany) to 34% (Japan) lower than the USA. In terms of median personal disposable income, the countries are anywhere from 20% (Germany) to 35% (Japan) worse off than the USA. The median numbers are after taxes and after transfer payments for healthcare and education than the like, so incorporate the "benefits" of living in a more socialistic society.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispos..._capita_income

[Jacuzzme]

The pipe layers in Canada are doing fine, collecting enhanced unemployment while waiting for their next union project

Unemployed, living off others is now defined as “doing fine”.

*smdh*

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Jacuzzme

Unemployed, living off others is now defined as “doing fine”.

*smdh*

It was sarcasm in case you missed it.

Go back and read in order and context.

It spoke of job loss and the the reply from which you took exception to.

You missed the point the to job loss some were crying about were actually unionized from Canada.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by Tiny

I have attempted for years to enlighten my right honorable friend, What The Fuck (WTF), that small government, lower taxes and a nonunionized workforce result in greater prosperity for the majority of people. I have provided the examples of Singapore, Switzerland, and the United States. Kicking out petrostates and small places, these countries have lower taxes and government spending as a % of GDP than other developed countries, but higher per capita GDP and higher median disposable income. True, enlightenment on this particular matter will not raise my right honorable friend's IQ by 20 points, as he must already be rather smart having voted for Gary Johnson in 2016. But sadly he continues to live in ignorance on this particular point.

And as to the right honorable gentleman bf0082, there actually is no correlation that I am aware of between unionization of the workforce and prosperity. I just said that to annoy him. However, the countries mentioned in his post, all of which have more socialistic systems than the USA, are also significantly poorer than the USA. They have GDP's per capita adjusted for purchasing power from 14% (Germany) to 34% (Japan) lower than the USA. In terms of median personal disposable income, the countries are anywhere from 20% (Germany) to 35% (Japan) worse off than the USA. The median numbers are after taxes and after transfer payments for healthcare and education than the like, so incorporate the "benefits" of living in a more socialistic society.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...centage_of_GDP
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispos..._capita_income

Tiny you are ignoring the jist I'd his post imho.

He pointed out we already live in a socialistic society and gave numerous examples.

He started with the premise of the natural resource wealth of this country and that it matter little as to the political model.

Once folks understand that we in fact do live in a socialistic nation and all embrace certain forms of it depending on their enlightenment, we'd all be better off. We'd understand that we all are exactly the same. Championing industries and causes that directly benefit us while ignoring the many socialistic parts of the whole of that cause or industry.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by WTF

Tiny you are ignoring the jist I'd his post imho.

He pointed out we already live in a socialistic society and gave numerous examples.

He started with the premise of the natural resource wealth of this country and that it matter little as to the political model.

Once folks understand that we in fact do live in a socialistic nation and all embrace certain forms of it depending on their enlightenment, we'd all be better off. We'd understand that we all are exactly the same. Championing industries and causes that directly benefit us while ignoring the many socialistic parts of the whole of that cause or industry.

True WTF, but it's a matter of degree. Overall the western Europeans, with a few exceptions, believe in larger government, and that's handicapped their economies compared to ours.

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by WTF

Trump led the birther movement...."the turnabout is fair play" bs should have been directed towards Trump, not in defense of.

That was actually Hillary Clinton who first started the birther movement. Trump just perfected it.

[winn dixie]

Who gives a fuck that motherfucker was born in a god damned hut in kenya

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by bf0082

With all the natural resources in the USA, we would be successful in any form of government...

The majority of our life now is socialistic....

by Miles Mogulescu | Feb 7, 2019 | Blog | 38 comments

During Donald Trump’s State of the Union speech, many of the old, white, Republican Senators and Representatives must have gotten more exercise than in weeks, jumping to their feet to applaud almost every sentence of the endless rhetoric.

One of the moments that got the loudest applause was Trump’s attempt to blame progressive Democrats for the problems of the current Venezuelan government, proclaiming the U.S. “will never be a socialist country” to a loud standing ovation from Republicans (and too many Democrats) and chants of “USA, USA, USA.”

Like so much of Trump’s speech, the statement was false. I have news for the Donald: The United States—like every other country with an advanced economy, such as the U.K., Germany, France, and Japan—is already a partly socialist country, with a mixed economy and many government programs that serve the public good.

By this defintion, Social Security is a "socialist" program: it's a government-run pension system that cuts out private money managers. Medicare - a single-payer, government-run health insurance program for those over 65 - is too. Medicare-For-All would simply extend this to the rest of the population.

The minimum wage, maximum hour, and child labor laws that go back over a century are likewise "socialist" programs, in that the government intervenes in the capitalist market to require employers to meet minimum standards that might not be met in a pure, unregulated “free” market. Agricultural and energy subsidies are likewise socialist programs. I could go on and on.

Stripped of the Red-baiting and name-calling, the real debate isn’t between capitalism vs. socialism, but about the appropriate balance between the two.

Conservatives want to reduce Social Security and Medicare benefits and reduce the numbers who qualify, while progressives want to increase and expand these programs. Many progressives want to move towards a Medicare system covering all Americans, not just those over 65 (“Medicare for All”) while centrist Democrats want to protect the ACA which is a hybrid between private insurance and government insurance and regulation, and conservatives want to go back to the all-private system which pre-dated the ACA.

The government already supports higher education (that’s socialism) but progressives want to make a public college education free or debt-free. Conservatives support government subsidies for agriculture and the oil energy (that’s socialism) while many progressives believe this is “reverse welfare” for the rich and want to reduce them.

+1

Excellent post. The USA has been a mixed economy for quite some time. I am ok with not letting 12 year old kids work in the coal mines.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by WTF

He pointed out we already live in a socialistic society and gave numerous examples.

He started with the premise of the natural resource wealth of this country and that it matter little as to the political model.

Once folks understand that we in fact do live in a socialistic nation and all embrace certain forms of it depending on their enlightenment, we'd all be better off.

Agreed. The government of the USA has some policies that are socialistic in nature. However, in the USA the means of production is not controlled by the state. Therefore, the socialist/socialism tag that republicans like to use simply does not apply.
If the USA were truly socialist, you would not have one percent of the population controlling 90% of the wealth. You would not have guys like Bezos, Buffet, Gates, Ellison, Zuckerberg or the Google boys having more money than they can count.

[adav8s28]

Originally Posted by gnadfly

But I didn't make those promises: Joe Biden did. He promised a check, a $15 an hour min wage, restarting Obamacare, reopening schools, open borders, state and city bailouts and a lot of other "free stuff." All this costs money. I don't agree with most of it.

But I didn't make those promises. Joe Biden and the Democrats did. So where is it? All these promises unfulfilled and no pushback.

The lead story today is Kanye and Kim's divorce.

Biden has been in office for 30 days. The check can't be cut with just an Executive Order. Congress has to pass legislation. The second $1400 that you are referring to should be in people's account by mid march, which is when the unemployment runs out. Restart Obamacare? The tax credits to help pay premium did not stop under Trump and has always been available to those who qualify( a family of 4 that makes > $24,000 and < $120,000 )are eligible for the subsidy. This did not change under Trump. The schools have opened in some cities. A part time cashier at my local Krogers is back in high school. Students can go to the school or take classes remote on-line. You say there is no push back, Biden has only been in office for a month.

Trump promised 4,5,6 percent GDP growth once his corporate tax cuts were implemented. Trump didn't even hit 3%. His percentages were essentially the same as Obama's.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-gdp-growth-3306008

I won't talk about that wall that Mexico was suppose to pay for. LOL

[gnadfly]

Originally Posted by WTF

It was sarcasm in case you missed it.

....

Most people consider your posts unintended sarcasm.

Originally Posted by adav8s28

Biden has been in office for 30 days. The check can't be cut with just an Executive Order. Congress has to pass legislation. The second $1400 that you are referring to should be in people's account by mid march, which is when the unemployment runs out. Restart Obamacare? The tax credits to help pay premium did not stop under Trump and has always been available to those who qualify( a family of 4 that makes > $24,000 and < $120,000 )are eligible for the subsidy. This did not change under Trump. The schools have opened in some cities. A part time cashier at my local Krogers is back in high school. Students can go to the school or take classes remote on-line. You say there is no push back, Biden has only been in office for a month.

Trump promised 4,5,6 percent GDP growth once his corporate tax cuts were implemented. Trump didn't even hit 3%. His percentages were essentially the same as Obama's.

https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-gdp-growth-3306008

I won't talk about that wall that Mexico was suppose to pay for. LOL

Biden doesn't want to bargain. That's why he's signed a record number of EOs and EAs in his first 30 days.

Trumps promises were working well and being kept until the whole COVID lockdown thing happed. For example, where are a lot of the new COVID cases "originating" in the US? The border towns where latin American immigrants can go where they please. In Houston, what group has the highest percentage of deaths? Hispanics. Some States are still shut down. Some school districts are still off campus classes only.