Bernie Sanders is a nothing.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

But the one question I can't seem to get an answer for is if we implemented certain aspects of socialism such as providing basic needs for all what will those receiving beneifits give up?

Taxes, just as you do now.

Police and roads ok, but in that form of socialism see the benefits.

Then you agree with the benefits of socialism. I knew you would come around.

In each instance some one is providing something or giving something up

That's true. If you don't like socialism, quit using the roads we paid for.

They can see a return.

Perhaps it is the need for a return that has breed the police state. I hope ketsuko sees your post as it demonstrates that perfectly.

While nice deflect attempt at every turn overall it was a fail. If you honestly felt the question I was asking was not clear or you really addressed it I can ask again. I'm sure you amused yourself and that's what matters. Care to answer though? Its telling supporters never will.


Taxes are what the providers give up, what do the people receiving benefits give up? I was quite clear in showing that in all other examples someone receiving benefits gave something up as well. So what will people who at the moment do not have basic needs be giving up in exchange for providing them. Not a wrong answer, curios what it is

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

The founding fathers talked about the importance of taxes. They must be socialist.

Thanks for the clarification.

Different kind of taxes, different kind of "Socialism"

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

But the one question I can't seem to get an answer for is if we implemented certain aspects of socialism such as providing basic needs for all what will those receiving beneifits give up?

Taxes, just as you do now.

Police and roads ok, but in that form of socialism see the benefits.

Then you agree with the benefits of socialism. I knew you would come around.

In each instance some one is providing something or giving something up

That's true. If you don't like socialism, quit using the roads we paid for.

They can see a return.

Perhaps it is the need for a return that has breed the police state. I hope ketsuko sees your post as it demonstrates that perfectly.

While nice deflect attempt at every turn overall it was a fail. If you honestly felt the question I was asking was not clear or you really addressed it I can ask again. I'm sure you amused yourself and that's what matter. Care to answer though? Its telling supporters never will.

If I missed something, please be more specific. I believe I answered everything you asked. No need to deflect.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

The founding fathers talked about the importance of taxes. They must be socialist.

Thanks for the clarification.

Different kind of taxes, different kind of "Socialism"

But socialism just the same.

I thank you very much for adding to this discussion as it allowed us to witness how the founding fathers agreed with certain principles of socialism.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: Reallyfolks

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

But the one question I can't seem to get an answer for is if we implemented certain aspects of socialism such as providing basic needs for all what will those receiving beneifits give up?

Taxes, just as you do now.

Police and roads ok, but in that form of socialism see the benefits.

Then you agree with the benefits of socialism. I knew you would come around.

In each instance some one is providing something or giving something up

That's true. If you don't like socialism, quit using the roads we paid for.

They can see a return.

Perhaps it is the need for a return that has breed the police state. I hope ketsuko sees your post as it demonstrates that perfectly.

While nice deflect attempt at every turn overall it was a fail. If you honestly felt the question I was asking was not clear or you really addressed it I can ask again. I'm sure you amused yourself and that's what matter. Care to answer though? Its telling supporters never will.

If I missed something, please be more specific. I believe I answered everything you asked. No need to deflect.

Taxes are what the providers give up, what do the people receiving benefits give up? I was quite clear in showing that in all other examples someone receiving benefits gave something up as well. So what will people who at the moment do not have basic needs be giving up in exchange for providing them. Not a wrong answer, curios what it is

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Taxes are what the providers give up, what do the people receiving benefits give up?

Good question. Perhaps it's better to look at what they are not giving up. In the case of food, shelter and healthcare, it is their life. We should care about that, right?

(If you try to respond with some sort of anti-abortion nonsense, I will not respond to it. That's a different matter all together)

I was quite clear in showing that in all other examples someone receiving benefits gave something up as well

What do you give up now to live in a "capitalist" society?

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am a socialist and I know full well about socialism. What you are portraying is the ultimate extreme. I don;t agree with that whatsoever.

You don't have to agree with the extremes to believe in the basic principles of socialism.

Yep, utopian. Looks great on paper, fails miserably when put into practice.

You mean except in the nations where socialism does work?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Teikiatsu

So the police are a failure? The military? The fire department?

How about the roads you drive on and the public works that make sure your water is clean?

You're welcome.

For what? They aren't centrally planned, even the US Military. They do not represent the public redistribution of non-public goods. They are not in control of the economy.

Those are the core tenets of Socialism.

originally posted by: buster2010

originally posted by: Teikiatsu

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Teikiatsu

I am a socialist and I know full well about socialism. What you are portraying is the ultimate extreme. I don;t agree with that whatsoever.

You don't have to agree with the extremes to believe in the basic principles of socialism.

Yep, utopian. Looks great on paper, fails miserably when put into practice.

You mean except in the nations where socialism does work?

Since there are none, sure.

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

The founding fathers talked about the importance of taxes. They must be socialist.

Thanks for the clarification.

Different kind of taxes, different kind of "Socialism"

But socialism just the same.

I thank you very much for adding to this discussion as it allowed us to witness how the founding fathers agreed with certain principles of socialism.

And I agree that they agreed.

originally posted by: buster2010

You mean except in the nations where socialism does work?

Along with all their poverty and massive debt and micro-managing authoritarianism.

originally posted by: buster2010
You mean except in the nations where socialism does work?

Such as?

a reply to: Teikiatsu

For what?

You're welcome for using the fruits of my (and everyone else's) labor that were taxed and used to build that which you use daily.

They aren't centrally planned, even the US Military.

The constitution would disagree.

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert

originally posted by: xuenchen

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: xuenchen

The founding fathers talked about the importance of taxes. They must be socialist.

Thanks for the clarification.

Different kind of taxes, different kind of "Socialism"

But socialism just the same.

I thank you very much for adding to this discussion as it allowed us to witness how the founding fathers agreed with certain principles of socialism.

And I agree that they agreed.

Awesome!

Now we're on the right track, huh?

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Taxes are what the providers give up, what do the people receiving benefits give up?

Good question. Perhaps it's better to look at what they are not giving up. In the case of food, shelter and healthcare, it is their life. We should care about that, right?

(If you try to respond with some sort of anti-abortion nonsense, I will not respond to it. That's a different matter all together)

I was quite clear in showing that in all other examples someone receiving benefits gave something up as well

What do you give up now to live in a "capitalist" society?

Me I give up taxes to live in this system.. In the military I was government property and gave up most personal freedom.

As far as giving up life ? Where are all the dead people now lining our streets from lack of providing needs

I understand the humane aspect of it but at the same time you can't have large groups of people not adding to the pool who have the ability to do so. Meaning if you can work you have to, eventually in that scenario too many not helping who can and everything fails. So mandatory health check and all abled bodies forced to work so those that can't are provided for? How would the logistics work out?

a reply to: Reallyfolks

Me I give up taxes to live in this system.

Socialism.

Where are all the dead people now lining our streets from lack of providing needs

Dead, of course.

I understand the humane aspect of it but at the same time you can't have large groups of people not adding to the pool who have the ability to do so.

3-8% unemployment and a sales tax in almost every state. Where is this "large group" you speak of?

Meaning if you can work you have to

Isn't that what we do now, except we have to apply for benefits to subsidize our income because the corporations own our government?

originally posted by: introvert
Isn't that what we do now, except we have to apply for benefits to subsidize our income because the corporations own our government?

No, more than a few of us have to work to pay for those benefits and subsidies for everybody else. That's where we are going to butt some damn heads, because frankly I'm sick of sticky little fingers inside my wallet. Sanders represents an escalation of that and, thus, is a piss poor choice for president. unless you think people should be paid purely because they exist, in which case I suppose the man is seen as a Godsend. I don't share that attitude or I wouldn't be a Social Darwinist.

originally posted by: introvert
a reply to: Reallyfolks

Me I give up taxes to live in this system.

Socialism.

Where are all the dead people now lining our streets from lack of providing needs

Dead, of course.

I understand the humane aspect of it but at the same time you can't have large groups of people not adding to the pool who have the ability to do so.

3-8% unemployment and a sales tax in almost every state. Where is this "large group" you speak of?

Meaning if you can work you have to

Isn't that what we do now, except we have to apply for benefits to subsidize our income because the corporations own our government?

Dead of course? If they are dead then who do we need to provide for?

Where is what large group? If everyone is provided all needs you mean to tell me that wouldn't be an issue? Work or not needs are provided for, work terrible job, or don't. Hard choice

No I don't. So you are saying the corporations should provide basic needs?


I give up taxes so that's socialism? Would you start by defining socialism for me

a reply to: burdman30ott6

No, more than a few of us have to work to pay for those benefits and subsidies for everybody else.

Everybody? A bit dramatic don't you think?

According to the numbers and statistics the majority of us work and then there are some that cannot survive on those wages because of various reasons. Sounds like a problem with our wage/economic model, does it not?

Is that the fault of socialists? Seems to me that socialism is the only thing holding us together.

That's where we are going to butt some damn heads, because frankly I'm sick of sticky little fingers inside my wallet.

Can you name a country in which you can live that does not require you to contribute in some form or fashion? Living in a civilized society will cost you.

Sanders represents an escalation of that and, thus, is a piss poor choice for president.

Sanders represents that which you already take advantage of, but wishes to change the priority to that of the people and not the special interest/corporation.

a reply to: Reallyfolks

If everyone is provided all needs you mean to tell me that wouldn't be an issue?

Who said anything about all needs? Don't take things to a ridiculous extreme.

So you are saying the corporations should provide basic needs?

No. Where did that come from? They are part of the problem and, as it stands, unconstitutional.

I give up taxes so that's socialism?

Yup. You are contributing to the public good by doing so. The very basic tenant of socialism.

Thank you.