Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Saucer

The Dems' Socialist Media Bubble: US Voters reject Socialism with only 19% approving and 53% disapproving of it

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No it isn't.

 

And the things we are talking about now are STILL "not their socialism" of the USSR.

 

At first........you'd get explained as just being "ignorant"

 

Now that information has been provided to do, and clarified.........the fact that you still can't process it means you've been promoted to good ole fashioned "stupid."

Whatever dude, everyone can see it is actually you who don't know what they're talking about. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Whatever dude, everyone can see it is actually you who don't know what they're talking about. 

No..........everybody but you can actually explain it, provide actual examples.

 

None of your history is correct, and you seemingly keep on CHANGING your explanation once your previous one was debunked.

 

Believe me........calling you "stupid" is actually the more merciful option, because the alternative would be saying you are intentionally being deceitful and lying.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No..........everybody but you can actually explain it, provide actual examples.

 

None of your history is correct, and you seemingly keep on CHANGING your explanation once your previous one was debunked.

 

Believe me........calling you "stupid" is actually the more merciful option, because the alternative would be saying you are intentionally being deceitful and lying.

You think social security is socialist because it has "social" in it. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

You think social security is socialist because it has "social" in it. 

Wow.........I guess you aren't actually malicious..........you're just stupid.

 

It is LITERALLY a social program.

 

 

Quote

 

The Bottom Line

It's interesting to remember that the U.S. got the idea for a social-security system from 19th century Germany. That very capitalist monarchy launched an old-age social insurance program in 1889 at the behest of Chancellor Otto von Bismarck, partly to stave off radical socialist ideas being floated at the time. The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government.

 

Nevertheless, because the American government plays such a dominant role in the U.S. Social Security system – deciding how much and when employees and employers pay into the system, how much individuals receive in benefits when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out—it seems fair to call the Social Security program a form of socialism. The program requires workers and their employers, along with self-employed individuals, to pay into the system throughout their working years. The government controls the money they contribute and decides when and how much they get back after—and if—they reach retirement age.

 

  • You cannot opt-out of it.
  • Everybody who earns an income pays for it.
  • The government collects it
  • The government calculates and decides how much everybody gets
  • People who are on the upper end of the tax, when they end up getting their payout, will be lower than what they paid into it
  • People who are on the lower end of the tax, when they end up getting their payout, will be higher than what they paid into it.
  • The government is literally averaging and equalizing the payout, by design.

 

Yeah, Einstein.............that's socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jehurey said:

Wow.........I guess you aren't actually malicious..........you're just stupid.

 

It is LITERALLY a social program.

 

 

  • You cannot opt-out of it.
  • Everybody who earns an income pays for it.
  • The government collects it
  • The government calculates and decides how much everybody gets
  • People who are on the upper end of the tax, when they end up getting their payout, will be lower than what they paid into it
  • People who are on the lower end of the tax, when they end up getting their payout, will be higher than what they paid into it.
  • The government is literally averaging and equalizing the payout, by design.

 

Yeah, Einstein.............that's socialism.

Socialism and Communism don't exist as economic systems. 

 

Social security is a government run scheme to distribute income, which works through an allocation of "capitalist" resources. It's simply a distribution scheme from the people who pay in today to the people who paid in yesterday. You can call it socialist if you wish, but in reality there is nothing socialist about it, it's just government and a government scheme involving "capitalism." 

 

You need "capitalism" to run social security, as the real distribution of wealth happen through markets. 

 

What socialism and communism are actually is that they're political movements to create more and more government schemes to redirect the economy, or even to simply have a planned economy. But a planned economy isn't socialist either. 

 

It's right that socialism and communism are different movements historically, but they are the same thing in theory.

 

Capitalism isn't a real concept either. Everything Marx wrote was wrong. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example, your quote says that social security started as an anti socialist program. "The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Socialism and Communism don't exist as economic systems. 

 

Social security is a government run scheme to distribute income, which works through an allocation of "capitalist" resources. It's simply a distribution scheme from the people who pay in today to the people who paid in yesterday. You can call it socialist if you wish, but in reality there is nothing socialist about it, it's just government and a government scheme involving "capitalism." 

 

You need "capitalism" to run social security, as the real distribution of wealth happen through markets. 

 

What socialism and communism are actually is that they're political movements to create more and more government schemes to redirect the economy, or even to simply have a planned economy. But a planned economy isn't socialist either. 

 

It's right that socialism and communism are different movements historically, but they are the same thing in theory.

 

Capitalism isn't a real concept either. Everything Marx wrote was wrong. 

Sorry, you're not going to reset the argument again because you're in a corner you can't get out of.

 

You can't explain how it isn't socialist.

 

You literally just typed:
 

Quote

 

Social security is a government run scheme to distribute income


 

2 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

For example, your quote says that social security started as an anti socialist program. "The original social security was actually an anti-socialist maneuver by a conservative government."

Uh huh................................and did you continue reading, or is your collective intelligence constructed out of unfinished thoughts?

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jehurey said:

Sorry, you're not going to reset the argument again because you're in a corner you can't get out of.

 

You can't explain how it isn't socialist.

 

You literally just typed:
 

Uh huh................................and did you continue reading, or is your collective intelligence constructed out of unfinished thoughts?

Sorry you can't handle the theory behind it, I guess it was a waste of time trying to educate you. 

 

 

Social security is anti socialist, therefore it isn't socialist. owned. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Sorry you can't handle the theory behind it, I guess it was a waste of time trying to educate you. 

 

 

Social security is anti socialist, therefore it isn't socialist. owned. 

Sorry if you can't read the rest of a paragraph.............its not my responsibility to teach you how to read properly.

 

Its obvious you were trying to keep on some false pretense.........if you want. I can do what you JUST DID>

 

We'll give Medicare for Everybody..........and when you get around to asking "is it socialist"............we can just lie to you face and say "No".........and just like you did now with Social Security, you'll be on your merry way thinking that it isn't. :drake:

 

hell, that's makes it easier on everybody.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jehurey said:

Sorry if you can't read the rest of a paragraph.............its not my responsibility to teach you how to read properly.

 

Its obvious you were trying to keep on some false pretense.........if you want. I can do what you JUST DID>

 

We'll give Medicare for Everybody..........and when you get around to asking "is it socialist"............we can just lie to you face and say "No".........and just like you did now with Social Security, you'll be on your merry way thinking that it isn't. :drake:

 

hell, that's makes it easier on everybody.

Socialism is a political movement, it doesn't exist as an economic system. I'd oppose things socialists get through government because they're often inefficient. But i'm not going to pretend some government program is a new special economic system.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, GeorgeW1000 said:

Socialism is a political movement, it doesn't exist as an economic system. I'd oppose things socialists get through government because they're often inefficient. But i'm not going to pretend some government program is a new special economic system.  

No it isn't a political movement. Its a payment method to provide a tax benefit.

 

You're already pretending that a government program isn't socialism..........I'm sure you can do it again.

 

You can't win an argument to save your life, the only thing you're doing to is trying to act confident to make us think you aren't fundamentally stupid.

 

Like I said. Pretending is definitely your forte.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jehurey said:

No it isn't a political movement. Its a payment method to provide a tax benefit.

 

You're already pretending that a government program isn't socialism..........I'm sure you can do it again.

 

You can't win an argument to save your life, the only thing you're doing to is trying to act confident to make us think you aren't fundamentally stupid.

 

Like I said. Pretending is definitely your forte.

I'm sorry, I actually think I won the argument. 

>social security started as an anti socialist program

>socialism is a political movement to institute "socialism"

>socialists had no involvement in instituting social security. 

 

Are these things not true? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

I'm sorry, I actually think I won the argument. 

>social security started as an anti socialist program

>socialism is a political movement to institute "socialism"

>socialists had no involvement in instituting social security. 

 

Are these things not true? 

Of course you "think" that.

 

Along with everything else that you couldn't prove and lost.

 

No.........social security was started as a social program, to help the elderly who did not work anymore, because they were the largest homeless demographic in the US

 

Socialism is not a political movement, because BOTH Democrats and Republicans have instituted it before. National Highway Act of 1956 that used tax payer money from all states to construct highways and distribute funds was signed into law by a Republican. That's a socialist program.

 

FDR is, by America's standard, definitely a socialist. FDR instituted Social Security.

 

You lost all three of those.  Now watch as you................offer zero counter-evidence.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jehurey said:

Of course you "think" that.

 

Along with everything else that you couldn't prove and lost.

 

No.........social security was started as a social program, to help the elderly who did not work anymore, because they were the largest homeless demographic in the US

 

Socialism is not a political movement, because BOTH Democrats and Republicans have instituted it before. National Highway Act of 1956 that used tax payer money from all states to construct highways and distribute funds was signed into law by a Republican. That's a socialist program.

 

FDR is, by America's standard, definitely a socialist.

 

You lost all three of those.  Now watch as you................offer zero counter-evidence.

You don't know what you're talking about. Government isn't socialism. All you're doing is that you're calling government stuff socialism, which is a political media thing you'd see on fox news. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

You don't know what you're talking about. Government isn't socialism. All you're doing is that you're calling government stuff socialism, which is a political media thing you'd see on fox news. 

Nope.

 

Respond to what I just provided evidence for.

 

or else you lost all three arguments.

 

I'll wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jehurey said:

Nope.

 

Respond to what I just provided evidence for.

 

or else you lost all three arguments.

 

I'll wait.

What do you want me to do? Link you to some political crap blog that says "Yes, it's not socialism."

 

I provided you with theory. You couldn't argue against the theory so you just crossed it out. You can't handle that level of thinking. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

What do you want me to do? Link you to some political crap blog that says "Yes, it's not socialism."

Yeah.

 

Most people would call that "Evidence" or "Proof"
 

Your theory is worthless.

 

Now go ahead.........go find it.

 

I'll wait.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, jehurey said:

Yeah.

 

Most people would call that "Evidence" or "Proof"
 

Your theory is worthless.

 

Now go ahead.........go find it.

 

I'll wait.

Why don't you give me proof that FDR is "definitely a socialist." 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

5 minutes ago, GeorgeW1000 said:

Why don't you give me proof that FDR is "definitely a socialist." 

Because they literally called him that at the time.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/

 
Quote

 

Barack Obama
stated on September 21, 2009 in interview on "Late Night with David Letterman":
"FDR was called a socialist and a communist."

 

meter-true.jpg

Obama right that Roosevelt was called a socialist and a communist

 

Sound familiar?

 

The president was accused of being "a socialist, not a Democrat." His plan was described as "undisguised state socialism." One critic, who controlled some powerful media outlets, suggested that communists had infiltrated the president's administration.

 

Those are some of the attacks that Franklin Delano Roosevelt faced in the 1930s — attacks cited recently by President Barack Obama to emphasize that he's not unique.

 

Obama has mentioned the Roosevelt comparison several times recently, including during an interview on Late Night with David Letterman on Sept. 21, 2009:

 

"What's happened is that whenever a president tries to bring about significant changes, particularly during times of economic unease, then there is a certain segment of the population that gets very riled up," Obama said. "FDR was called a socialist and a communist."

 

Indeed, Roosevelt was called a socialist or a communist many times. Most of that criticism came in the 1930s, when he was enacting programs intended to pull the country out of the Great Depression.

 

"Roosevelt is a socialist, not a Democrat," declared Republican Rep. Robert Rich of Pennsylvania during a debate on the House floor on July 23, 1935. That remark came after Republicans hinted they were considering a move to impeach Roosevelt, according to the New York Times .

 

"The New Deal is now undisguised state socialism, declared Senator Simeon D. Fess (R-Ohio) today as he pictured President Roosevelt as the New Deal's leading socialist," reported the Chicago Daily Tribune on Aug. 7, 1934. "The president's recent statements," Fess said, "remove any doubt of his policy of state socialism, which necessitates increased activities of the government in either ownership or operation of industry, or both."

 

Like I said................by America's standards, he was considered a socialist.

 

By european standards, where they have ALOT of socialist programs, FDR was considered a moderate.

 

Look at that................me providing evidence. Links. Names. Dates. Sources.

 

Let me know when you can do that.

 

I'll wait.

Edited by jehurey

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, jehurey said:

 

Because they literally called him that at the time.

 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2009/sep/22/barack-obama/obama-roosevelt-socialist-communist/

 

Like I said................by America's standards, he was considered a socialist.

 

By european standards, where they have ALOT of socialist programs, FDR was considered a moderate.

 

Look at that................me providing evidence. Links. Names. Dates. Sources.

 

Let me know when you can do that.

 

I'll wait.

Doesn't prove that he was a socialist. Hint, Obama and FDR are not socialists. 

 

The only one socialist is Bernie Sanders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×