|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 28, 2018 17:23:59 GMT -5
I am not disagreeing with anything being said here, but it's still not socialism. Publicly funded "guaranteed jobs" is the only thing in the ballpark of the definition. We already have a glut of publicly funded state jobs. If you work for the federal government in any capacity beyond representatively, you're already participating in and benefiting from "socialism" by this new definition. Not to mention, Trump demanding action from GM is as socialist of policy as any.
Socialism has become like a boogeyman word that people throw around, but don't really know.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 17:47:03 GMT -5
^
Apparently you don't know what socialism means either.
And it's not a boogie man. It's a political term that has small benefit when applied in a small way. When applied in a larger way it has no benefit and is detrimental. It also tends to lead to excessive amounts of government spending and waste. It leads to people gaming the system. It leads to Greater inequality. The irony is that it always comes under the guise of more equality. All pigs are created equal but some pigs are more equal than others.
She does not think that the already present socialist aspects of our society are enough. She wants more, and that is not the correct approach because when you have too much socialism you have a soon-to-be dead country.
The idea that people who work for the federal government are participating in socialism is a pretty dumb thing to say. You work for the government and are an employee.
The difference between a person who volunteers to work for the government in our society and someone who works for the government in a purely socialist society is that the person in our society made the choice to work for the government.
And, most people who work for the government in some capacity typically end their careers in the private sector.
Democratic socialism is socialism. Maybe look up what the USSR was? (It was a Democratic Socialist state.)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 18:02:27 GMT -5
I dont understand how you dont see Medicare for all as Socialism. The government would control all means of production. It would dictate reimbursement rates. It would say what is and what is not covered as far as procedures go. It would handcuff doctors by adding ridiculous measures such as MIPS. There would be no competition in the field either. What about it would make you believe it is a free market, capitalist, or any kind of market besides socialism?
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 28, 2018 19:22:37 GMT -5
A "guaranteed wage" for every person isn't socialism? if every single person is paid a minimum of $15 per hour and it's government funded, that is an absolute and important pilar of a socialist government. Socialism advances the notion that everyone deserves and will receive basic care VIA THE GOVERNMENT - wage, education, food, housing and medical care. That IS her exact platform. She states, explicitly, every person will get a guaranteed wage of $15 per hour, education including advanced education is FREE, medical care for ALL, housing reform, etc.
It's like hitting your own head against the wall explaining shit to andrew. He is actually dumb enough to argue a socialist who states a socialist agenda does not have socialist ideals.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 28, 2018 19:44:58 GMT -5
I dont understand how you dont see Medicare for all as Socialism. The government would control all means of production. It would dictate reimbursement rates. It would say what is and what is not covered as far as procedures go. It would handcuff doctors by adding ridiculous measures such as MIPS. There would be no competition in the field either. What about it would make you believe it is a free market, capitalist, or any kind of market besides socialism? Socialism in medicine would be if the government ran hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Medicare for all would be socializing the insurance industry, to an extent, but still not to the definition of socialism. But I haven't heard anyone, cortez or anyone else, suggest mandating that every American be forced to use Medicare. If I'm misunderstanding that part of it, and it's mandating the dissolution of the private medical industry, then I'm wrong. But I'm not, and nobody here can think outside what their source of fake news is telling them about what socialism is. And LOL at Tony and his "most who work for the government end up in private sector". No, that happens with a tiny minority of the overall state employed population. The overwhelming majority retire and collect government subsidized retirement benefits and social security.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 28, 2018 21:14:47 GMT -5
anyone that pays into social security and meets the requirements can later collect social security, soros andrew. It has nothing to do with working for the government. Further, the prior retirement system, CSRS, for fed law enforcement and any federal government employee that collect a pension, did NOT pay into social security and collect zero (unless they paid in from a separate career). The unions you hold in such high esteem PROHIBITED public and many private retirement systems members from paying into social security. It wasn't an option so only those that worked 40 quarters in the private sector collect it. The current system, FERS which I am under, allow employees to pay into social security. Same exact benefits provisions and contribution requirements for you, Tony and anyone else. Of course you don't know any of this because you're a clown too busy arguing a socialist isn't a socialist. Nevertheless, the irony of you working for a company contracted BY YOUR GOVERNMENT to pave roads yet you rail about how bad it is to "work for the government" never gets old. Keep it up, boy. You are 100% on the government tit.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 21:22:11 GMT -5
Socialism:
a political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
Everything discussed about what Cortez wants to implement is based on socialist theories by definition.
Anyone arguing that she is not a socialist and doesn’t want our country to be run by socialist principles, is purposely ignoring that she ran on a platform to promise equalization, and could simply not mention socialism. Socialism is equalization, and really nothing more.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 28, 2018 21:24:01 GMT -5
I dont understand how you dont see Medicare for all as Socialism. The government would control all means of production. It would dictate reimbursement rates. It would say what is and what is not covered as far as procedures go. It would handcuff doctors by adding ridiculous measures such as MIPS. There would be no competition in the field either. What about it would make you believe it is a free market, capitalist, or any kind of market besides socialism? Socialism in medicine would be if the government ran hospitals and pharmaceutical companies. Medicare for all would be socializing the insurance industry, to an extent, but still not to the definition of socialism. But I haven't heard anyone, cortez or anyone else, suggest mandating that every American be forced to use Medicare. If I'm misunderstanding that part of it, and it's mandating the dissolution of the private medical industry, then I'm wrong. But I'm not, and nobody here can think outside what their source of fake news is telling them about what socialism is. And LOL at Tony and his "most who work for the government end up in private sector". No, that happens with a tiny minority of the overall state employed population. The overwhelming majority retire and collect government subsidized retirement benefits and social security. I dont think you understand the healthcare system. If you control the payments, you control the industry. Government may not run every hospital but they will make every hospital compliant to their will or the hospital will lose their accreditation. That is how the government would control the entire industry. It would make no sense to have "Medicare for all" and not dissolve private insurance. Why would private companies spend money on something being provided by the government? Bernie and Cortez both think physicians should take lower reimbursement rates as well. They are literally controlling the finances. They then will use threat of losing reimbursements of providers that dont see x number of providers and have y amount of health outcomes. We are already responsible for patients that are noncompliant and reimbursement is affected by patient satisfaction. You are naive to think Medicare for all isnt "socialism."
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 28, 2018 22:02:17 GMT -5
I definitely don't understand the healthcare system as well as someone who works in it. That would be like a glorified bureaucrat claiming they know anything about the business operations and finances of a company that paves private parking lots and roads.
If regulation is socialism, then we are already down the road of socialism. Government/social ownership of industry is the key component that's missing in my mind.
|
|
|
Post by ocmmafan on Nov 29, 2018 0:25:17 GMT -5
LOL! Yeah, you only pave "private" roads and parking lots. Way to change your story, jackel. And I'm sure there are lots of "private" paved roads all over the place. Sell that line of bullshit elsewhere, government contractor. Your company is 99.9999% funded by government contracts and not a single person is going to believe you work for a paving company that strictly does private. Clown.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 6:26:47 GMT -5
I definitely don't understand the healthcare system as well as someone who works in it. That would be like a glorified bureaucrat claiming they know anything about the business operations and finances of a company that paves private parking lots and roads. If regulation is socialism, then we are already down the road of socialism. Government/social ownership of industry is the key component that's missing in my mind. Are you purposefully being obtuse? It isn't just regulations. They control the money. They will decide what is a fair wage for a doctor based on reimbursements. They will control every aspect outside of pharmaceutical costs but if they are the only game in town, they will be able to dictate what they feel is "fair" for prices on drugs as well. You cannot escape that Medicare for all is a socialist idea. I think you're trolling. This is like Jackel level. The known socialist who ran her campaign on socialist agendas does not have any real socialist policy ideas. That would make Jackel up his game.
|
|
|
Post by andrewk1988 on Nov 29, 2018 8:28:45 GMT -5
As far as I can tell, the same arguments were made about Medicare in the 60s. Old people now who made enough money/got pension to have private health insurance still have it. The boogeyman of America becoming a socialist state because of it never came anywhere close to reality. Socialism in America is another liberal boogeyman to the right and a play on words for the left.
I don't think cortez or any of the other "democratic socialists" really know what socialism is, because I haven't seen anyone proposing socialism.
Socialism when applied to medicine would look like: the state selects and sends candidates to state run medical schooling, owns and operates the medical facilities, and regulates the way all citizens receive medical care.
Medicare, for those who use it, do regulate where they can go for medical care but not the people or institutions that provide it.
Before he got bought off and stopped, trumps rhetoric on regulating private pharmaceutical companies is arguably more socialist than any "Medicare for all" policy ideas I've seen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 9:09:05 GMT -5
And LOL at Tony and his "most who work for the government end up in private sector". No, that happens with a tiny minority of the overall state employed population. The overwhelming majority retire and collect government subsidized retirement benefits and social security. LoL@you and your lack of insight. Such a good libtard. Never let the facts get in your way. Annual turnover in the gov't averages 16%. (That's more than 100% over ten years.) Ten years in the IRS and my wife is already a senior attorney. The only one still there among the class she was hired in. Every single other left for the private sector. It's funny how you like to make your assumptions fact. It's why you are wrong so often.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 10:05:47 GMT -5
Cortez want's our country to move towards full blown socialized medicine, services, employment and policies. She literally says this on a regular basis. I think now that she has been elected, she would be honored to be called the leading socialist politician in our government. Andrew is most definitely trolling here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 10:35:56 GMT -5
For a guy that supposedly doesnt follow MSM, you sure do sound like them. Socialism is the boogeyman, that's a headline from business insider.
There is a reason everyone is saying Medicare for all is socialized medicine and only a handful of people (like you) claim that isnt "true" socialism even when you admire you know nothing about the system you are referring to.
Also, just because something happened in the past doesnt mean it is right. Well, people said the same thing about Medicare. Well, yeah because it is a step towards socialism and it has wrecked our healthcare industry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 29, 2018 11:28:16 GMT -5
Andrew seems like one of those cats that didnt do well in school, is stuck busting his back pouring concrete and isnt too stoked on it. The smartest guys I have seen in concrete are usually the ones thar own the truck or the company. The rest...let's just say they usually lack a bit.
Of course he is trolling. And the peeps on here can't seem to get enough of it.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Dec 1, 2018 13:58:32 GMT -5
Andrew seems like one of those cats that didnt do well in school, is stuck busting his back pouring concrete and isnt too stoked on it. The smartest guys I have seen in concrete are usually the ones thar own the truck or the company . The rest...let's just say they usually lack a bit. Of course he is trolling. And the peeps on here can't seem to get enough of it. I didnt like Andrew much over at mmaweekly, but he's one of my favorite guys here now. Seems like a cool dude to chill with, even for a commie.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Dec 1, 2018 14:18:14 GMT -5
But that still doesnt stop me from wondering if the champagne socialists and guys like Andrew realize that Adolf Hitler was the only guy to ever successfully run a socialist state. Hitler was the only person in history to implement "real socialism" the way Marx wrote it up in Jackel's bible.Volkswagen translates to "the people's wagon." And before Hitler lost the war, he was planning to give each german family a free Volkswagen. True story. But the reason Hitler was able to make his socialist state successful without the use of gulag slave labor was because Hitler was a nationalist, and Germany at the time was a small homogeneous state/nation. Socialism can work in homogeneous, nationalist states. At least in that one instance. However we all know that Marx didnt intend for socialism to be successful, Hitler just made it work anyway. The true goal of Marx' socialism was to usurp wealth and power without having to go to war with the civilian populace.
|
|
|
Post by verbal0knit on Dec 1, 2018 18:49:13 GMT -5
She seems more bangable when she doesn't speak.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2018 18:52:20 GMT -5
Ha. The comments were entertaining.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 3, 2018 19:03:43 GMT -5
I've fucked plenty of stupid chicks, why would I make an exception for this one? A nut is a nut. Of course I'd hit it.
|
|
|
Post by adamg01 on Dec 3, 2018 20:11:46 GMT -5
I've fucked plenty of stupid chicks, why would I make an exception for this one? A nut is a nut. Of course I'd hit it. This is true. If you stopped having sex with all girls that are stupid it would put a hurting on your body count.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2019 20:12:42 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by vegeta420z on Jan 7, 2019 0:14:01 GMT -5
The occupation of Palestine Wow this bitch reminds me of miss teen south Carolina Carolina a few years back. And yeah I'd smash, she don't look good in the pictures but the videos she looks fuckable.
|
|
|
Post by vegeta420z on Jan 7, 2019 0:57:00 GMT -5
Test Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by vegeta420z on Jan 7, 2019 3:25:15 GMT -5
Tried out tapatalk app fucking horrible glitchy piece of shit, looked how easy it made uploading pics but no thanks on the rest of it.
|
|