McDonald's minimum wage fallout
- Thread starter gamecockcat
- Start date
Do you know how crazy this election is? Let me tell you something, I’ve about had it with these people.
And let me tell you why. We’ve got one candidate that says we ought to abolish Medicaid and Medicare. Have you ever heard of anything so crazy as that? Telling our people in this country who are seniors, or about to be seniors, that we`re going to abolish Medicaid and Medicare?
We’ve got one person saying we ought to have a 10% flat tax that will drive up the deficit in this country by trillions of dollars that my daughters will spend the rest of their lives having to pay off. You know what I say to them is why don’t we have no taxes, just get rid of them all, and then a chicken in every pot on top of it.
We’ve got one guy that says we ought to the take 10 million or 11 million people and pick them up – I don’t know if we’re going to go in their homes, their apartments? We’re going to pick them up and we’re going to take them to the border and scream at them to get out of our country? Well that’s just crazy. That is just crazy.
We’ve got people proposing health care reform that’s going to leave, I believe, millions of people without adequate health insurance. What have has happened to our party?
Okay I'm willing to give you a chance. What do you propose and who do you support?
I'd like to see Russ Feingold run.
That long quote is from John Kasich who summed up modern Republicanism in one swell foop.
Ah Russ Feingold, another Soros backed socialist. Tell me Moe why do you support Socialism?
Progressive really wear out the "you just don't understand how great socialism is" card. SMH.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
You didn't answer the question. Why do you support socialism?
I support New Deal/Great Society liberalism which you call "Socialism".
I'd beware of being a cranky, get-off-my-lawn, talk-radio-listening, Fox-News-watching grumpus.
Last edited:
Ok so because you give it a different name, it become a different thing? Your New Deal/Great Society has been slowly sucking the life out of our country for nearly a century now.
I'm not cranky, don't have a lawn, and don't listen to Fox news. I do listen to a few minutes of talk radio once in a while when driving. I'd be careful about being a stereotyping bigot if I were you.
Wait, someone on page 1 of this thread was trying to cite the need for fewer lawyers in this world as a danger of improving efficiency? Keep banging that drum, bud.
I can hear it now, "If we don't stop making this world more efficient millions of lawyers will be without a job!" That will certainly rally the masses!
I can hear it now, "If we don't stop making this world more efficient millions of lawyers will be without a job!" That will certainly rally the masses!
Different words have different meanings, as you can clearly see from your link. Calling the Roosevelt/Johnson New Deal/Great Society stuff socialism is either a scare tactic or ignorance. Same thing as when people on the left call the right fascist. There's plenty to criticize about Democratic ideas and programs without mislabeling them.
Now, this is the Paddock, so I fully expect you or someone else will take my narrow criticism of how you use a particular word and expand it into something it is not, but I guess that's the risk I take.
I won't criticize your post, I think it's fair. I would just say that redistribution of wealth is the primary goal of the New Deal, socialism, and the democratic party. That's why I lump them together. One of the top democrat candidates is an admitted socialist and the other agrees with him on basiclly everything. I would love for you to explain to me the difference between a socialist and a modern democrat/progressive.
From your link, socialism is:
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
I know Sanders calls himself a socialist, but from what little I've read on him he doesn't seem to advocate for the elimination of private property, or government ownership of means of production and distribution of goods. Maybe his $15 trillion or whatever in pie in the sky ideas are really his way of saying we should federalize Apple, but I tend to think he's just naive and unrealistic (like a supersized version of any politician's ). I don't think Clinton does, either. But it's a matter of degree. Higher taxes =/= socialism; higher taxes = higher taxes. If you think of government intervention in the economy on a line from balls to the wall laissez-faire to full on socialism, they're closer to socialism than candidates in the Republican party.
But why call something socialism when it's not? Why isn't it enough to say higher taxes are bad? Really, though, we (as a society) lack good labels for the huge, mushy middle, and campaigning is bumper sticker dumb.
Redistribution of wealth is a feature of any government tax (and tax break). If you own a home and take advantage of tax breaks not afforded to every income earner, do you support socialism? Of course not, even though my wealth is being redistributed to you. When I (childless) pay property taxes for others' children to go to school, am I contributing to a socialist system? No. I'm contributing to the mixed market system we have. There are degrees of difference between the two parties, but even a 10% difference in marginal tax rate is not the difference between a mixed market and socialism.
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
I know Sanders calls himself a socialist, but from what little I've read on him he doesn't seem to advocate for the elimination of private property, or government ownership of means of production and distribution of goods. Maybe his $15 trillion or whatever in pie in the sky ideas are really his way of saying we should federalize Apple, but I tend to think he's just naive and unrealistic (like a supersized version of any politician's ). I don't think Clinton does, either. But it's a matter of degree. Higher taxes =/= socialism; higher taxes = higher taxes. If you think of government intervention in the economy on a line from balls to the wall laissez-faire to full on socialism, they're closer to socialism than candidates in the Republican party.
But why call something socialism when it's not? Why isn't it enough to say higher taxes are bad? Really, though, we (as a society) lack good labels for the huge, mushy middle, and campaigning is bumper sticker dumb.
Redistribution of wealth is a feature of any government tax (and tax break). If you own a home and take advantage of tax breaks not afforded to every income earner, do you support socialism? Of course not, even though my wealth is being redistributed to you. When I (childless) pay property taxes for others' children to go to school, am I contributing to a socialist system? No. I'm contributing to the mixed market system we have. There are degrees of difference between the two parties, but even a 10% difference in marginal tax rate is not the difference between a mixed market and socialism.
It is obvious that you haven't been posting here long. The argument-ending tactic of calling people bigots is reserved only for the libs on threads involving race or LGBT issues. And you, sir, are not a lib. Stick with the time-honored and effective "idiot" or "moron."
Last edited:
Either Bernie is a socialist or he's a liar. I don't know him so I assume he's telling the truth.
^ yeah I don't look at his policies or follow his campaign. But he is probably misusing the term, as many do. Certainly he's closer to the socialist end of the spectrum than any other candidate.
He describes himself as a Nordic Welfare State Socialist. Private property. Market economy. Big social safety net. Karl Marx would have hated him. He caucuses with the Democrats.
What in a name? Steven Harper, the recently defeated Conservative PM of Canada, is a member of the Conservative Party. Canada's Conservative Party might be called "Socialist" on the Paddock. Private property. Market Economy. Big social safety net. Like Bernie.