Is Mandami going to be the final hill on which dems die?
In the event the rest of the dems (not just the leftist fringe) support him will the “dems” become a third party fading into obscurity and the socialists become the second party?
This page is a permanent link to the reply below and its nested replies. See all post replies »
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Unregulated capitalism has brought us to where we are today.
The gap between the rich and poor is wider by each passing second.
So.....providing a subsidy to Elon Musk or even farmers, is capitalism, but providing free healthcare to everyone is socialism.
The gap between the rich and poor is wider by each passing second.
So.....providing a subsidy to Elon Musk or even farmers, is capitalism, but providing free healthcare to everyone is socialism.
JSul3 · 70-79
@jackjjackson If it takes socialism to finally make the words 'Freedom, Equality, Justice for All' actually mean something and not empty words used to perpetuate a lie, then count me in.
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Tax revenue.
Suggest you do a bit of research on tax rates.
1932...63%.
1942...94% on $200k+
1949....82%.
The top marginal rate fluctuated between 70% and 92% on the 200,000th to the 400,000th dollar (the bracket on which the rate was charged was changed as well) over the following 20 years. During this time the Social Security Act created a Social Security tax, though because the Social Security tax is capped at ~$130,000 per individual this did not add to the overall top marginal rate.
Under President John F. Kennedy the top marginal rate was decreased in the Revenue Act of 1964 to 70%.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected and promised to cut the top marginal tax rate. This he did, and the top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28% on incomes over just $29,750 - the lowest this rate had been since 1925.
If you can't understand the need to raise taxes on the rich, I can't reason with you.
More and more people are falling into poverty and that's not a good thing for the country.
But you are probably fine with it....until it comes to your doorstep....and it will.
Suggest you do a bit of research on tax rates.
1932...63%.
1942...94% on $200k+
1949....82%.
The top marginal rate fluctuated between 70% and 92% on the 200,000th to the 400,000th dollar (the bracket on which the rate was charged was changed as well) over the following 20 years. During this time the Social Security Act created a Social Security tax, though because the Social Security tax is capped at ~$130,000 per individual this did not add to the overall top marginal rate.
Under President John F. Kennedy the top marginal rate was decreased in the Revenue Act of 1964 to 70%.
In 1980 Ronald Reagan was elected and promised to cut the top marginal tax rate. This he did, and the top marginal tax rate was lowered over his 8 years in office from 73% to 28% on incomes over just $29,750 - the lowest this rate had been since 1925.
If you can't understand the need to raise taxes on the rich, I can't reason with you.
More and more people are falling into poverty and that's not a good thing for the country.
But you are probably fine with it....until it comes to your doorstep....and it will.
JSul3 · 70-79
@jackjjackson Of course. They are not the same.
JSul3 · 70-79
@sunsporter1649 Another nonsense comment, adding nothing to the discussion.
jackjjackson · M
How so? @JSul3
JSul3 · 70-79
@jackjjackson
I will let Sarah Pruitt, a long time writer on history explain.
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them.
In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state.
Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.
Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.
Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991.
Today, communism and socialism exist in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—although in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.
Likewise, no country in history has achieved a state of pure socialism. Even countries that are considered by some people to be socialist states, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have successful capitalist sectors and follow policies that are largely aligned with social democracy. Many European and Latin American countries have adopted socialist programs (such as free college tuition, universal health care and subsidized child care) and even elected socialist leaders, with varying levels of success.
In the United States, socialism has not historically enjoyed as much success as a political movement. Its peak came in 1912, when Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs won 6 percent of the vote. But at the same time, U.S. programs once considered socialist, such as Medicare and Social Security, have been integrated into American life.
Democratic socialism, a growing U.S. political movement in recent years, lands somewhere in between social democracy and communism. Like communists, democratic socialists believe workers should control the bulk of the means of production, and not be subjected to the will of the free market and the capitalist classes. But they believe their vision of socialism must be achieved through democratic processes, rather than revolution.
********
So there you have it. As I have said before, unregulated capitalism has always favored the ultra wealthy over the common man, regardless of political party. The top 1% own 30-32% of the wealth in the US.
The share of wealth held by the top 1% has fluctuated over time but has generally increased since the 1980s. In contrast, the bottom 50% of the population holds a very small fraction of the total wealth, often around 2% or less. This stark contrast highlights the vast disparity in wealth distribution in the United States.
The poverty rate is between 11-12%..... that's 37-42 million people.
We.love to say how rich our country is, but if that's true, why do we have homeless....why are we so unhealthy....why do some not have enough food and clothing?
Our education system does not rank at the top with other nations in STEM. We say we love our veterans, but we don't really care for them.
We like to say 'freedom, liberty, and justice for all' but that's a lie. We both know that the rich don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. We know the law is not applied equally to everyone. Accountability? LOL.... that's only for 'the others' not fur the rich and powerful.
Years ago, Pat Buchanan said, 'America was built by white men, for white men.'
While I will question his stance on the labor that was used.... blacks, Asians, Hispanic, and yes, poor whites ...it was indeed built for white men, especially wealthy land owners.
We are on a course towards a day of reckoning in the US, and it may come sooner than we think.
I will let Sarah Pruitt, a long time writer on history explain.
Under communism, there is no such thing as private property. All property is communally owned, and each person receives a portion based on what they need. A strong central government—the state—controls all aspects of economic production, and provides citizens with their basic necessities, including food, housing, medical care and education.
By contrast, under socialism, individuals can still own property. But industrial production, or the chief means of generating wealth, is communally owned and managed by a democratically elected government.
Another key difference in socialism versus communism is the means of achieving them.
In communism, a violent revolution in which the workers rise up against the middle and upper classes is seen as an inevitable part of achieving a pure communist state.
Socialism is a less rigid, more flexible ideology. Its adherents seek change and reform, but often insist on making these changes through democratic processes within the existing social and political structure, not overthrowing that structure.
Unlike in communism, a socialist economic system rewards individual effort and innovation. Social democracy, the most common form of modern socialism, focuses on achieving social reforms and redistribution of wealth through democratic processes, and can co-exist alongside a free-market capitalist economy.
Communism existed in the Soviet Union until its fall in 1991.
Today, communism and socialism exist in China, Cuba, North Korea, Laos and Vietnam—although in reality, a purely communist state has never existed. Such countries can be classified as communist because in all of them, the central government controls all aspects of the economic and political system. But none of them have achieved the elimination of personal property, money or class systems that the communist ideology requires.
Likewise, no country in history has achieved a state of pure socialism. Even countries that are considered by some people to be socialist states, like Norway, Sweden and Denmark, have successful capitalist sectors and follow policies that are largely aligned with social democracy. Many European and Latin American countries have adopted socialist programs (such as free college tuition, universal health care and subsidized child care) and even elected socialist leaders, with varying levels of success.
In the United States, socialism has not historically enjoyed as much success as a political movement. Its peak came in 1912, when Socialist Party presidential candidate Eugene V. Debs won 6 percent of the vote. But at the same time, U.S. programs once considered socialist, such as Medicare and Social Security, have been integrated into American life.
Democratic socialism, a growing U.S. political movement in recent years, lands somewhere in between social democracy and communism. Like communists, democratic socialists believe workers should control the bulk of the means of production, and not be subjected to the will of the free market and the capitalist classes. But they believe their vision of socialism must be achieved through democratic processes, rather than revolution.
********
So there you have it. As I have said before, unregulated capitalism has always favored the ultra wealthy over the common man, regardless of political party. The top 1% own 30-32% of the wealth in the US.
The share of wealth held by the top 1% has fluctuated over time but has generally increased since the 1980s. In contrast, the bottom 50% of the population holds a very small fraction of the total wealth, often around 2% or less. This stark contrast highlights the vast disparity in wealth distribution in the United States.
The poverty rate is between 11-12%..... that's 37-42 million people.
We.love to say how rich our country is, but if that's true, why do we have homeless....why are we so unhealthy....why do some not have enough food and clothing?
Our education system does not rank at the top with other nations in STEM. We say we love our veterans, but we don't really care for them.
We like to say 'freedom, liberty, and justice for all' but that's a lie. We both know that the rich don't play by the same rules as the rest of us. We know the law is not applied equally to everyone. Accountability? LOL.... that's only for 'the others' not fur the rich and powerful.
Years ago, Pat Buchanan said, 'America was built by white men, for white men.'
While I will question his stance on the labor that was used.... blacks, Asians, Hispanic, and yes, poor whites ...it was indeed built for white men, especially wealthy land owners.
We are on a course towards a day of reckoning in the US, and it may come sooner than we think.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
jackjjackson · M
No comment re those “tits”. @Thinkerbell
Thinkerbell · 41-45, F
@jackjjackson
A valkyrie, Eva von Kron,
Had boobs that weighed most of a ton.
Her ponderous a—s
Was armed with spiked brass,
And humping her SURE was no fun.
A valkyrie, Eva von Kron,
Had boobs that weighed most of a ton.
Her ponderous a—s
Was armed with spiked brass,
And humping her SURE was no fun.