While You Were Sleeping: Among Democrats 49% Favorable To Socialism

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, what you're saying is Jesus doesn't have a dog in this fight?

Cool - I still say Bernie gets Jesus more than the rest of that embarrassing mob

But, that's neither here nor there - is it?

It's totally here and there.

"Oh, I shared my bacon with my wife, but it pissed me off because I didn't willingly give it to her."

Bernie understands it. And ANYONE who continues to say that "capitalism" works via "trickle-down" is, well - probably mentally challenged, probably overweight from having too much food, probably living beyond their means, and also probably not looking at anything except their own greedy selfishness.

Just saying.

They don't get that EVERYONE would be okay if we adopted Democratic Socialism. They don't "care" to 'get it.' They just keep comparing it to "Communism", and ignoring actual information, such as:

And they just knee-jerk, because they have:

So the Danish teacher makes 61k a year before taxes. And after? Looks like they have a 55% tax rate? 30k a year? That's barely over the poverty level in America for a family of four. Congrats!! Are we supposed to be impressed?

a reply to: burdman30ott6

First of all the generic "people who don't pay income tax" doesn't represent any given demographic or economic level, per se. There are millionaires who "don't pay income tax" as well. Forbes recently put the number at 45% Forbes article. So if you want to point to any particular "group" of Americans that don't pay, you're going to have to be a bit more specific, because the low-income earners (below the tax line) vote for both parties (and they still pay payroll taxes.) So, a bit more complicated than you seem to be suggesting, that these "non-payers" all vote a certain way.

I know it fits the rhetoric, but you haven't offered any proof.

As far as your comment about Democrat and Republican "verbiage", you might have a point in certain terms ... but then sadly you proceed to invoke another false dichotomy (liberal v. conservative) so, no thank you, I don't care to trade one illusion for another. The reality is, YOU were the one suggesting that the lower-tax demographic votes one way or the other, not me, and in this country, for all intents and purposes, that would have to be either D or R to have any significant meaning.

Under what definition of the word "liberal" do you find it applying to the current Republican party? I find that absurd in every definition I am aware of, but I'd like to give you the benefit of the doubt to speak your own mind.

a reply to: infolurker

I don't think it's a bad thing. We have sort of broken form of socialism in the USA as it is. We do all the things that socialist countries do but half-a@@ed.

We don't have single payer socialist health care-we have broken ObamaCare
Instead of mental healthcare for everyone we let them loose untill they kill people and then have a big argument about gun control instead of mental healthcare
Instead of basic housing and food for every citizen as in socialist countries...we do it all peacemeal and more expensive and give billions of dollars in corporate welfare to oil companies.
Instead of controls on financial institutions we give billions to criminal bankers and ignore all their crimes

so yeah...

a reply to: Gryphon66

So if you want to point to any particular "group" of Americans that don't pay, you're going to have to be a bit more specific, because the low-income earners (below the tax line) vote for both parties (and they still pay payroll taxes.) So, a bit more complicated than you seem to be suggesting, that these "non-payers" all vote a certain way.

Excuse the interruption - but, 10 years ago I had a friend who lived in Tok, Alaska.

He wanted me to move there. We talked a lot (I told him I was too old to go live where the sun doesn't shine all winter, but 25 years earlier I would have jumped at the chance!), and he shared many details about life up there.

He told me that they get STIPENDS - the people who LIVE THERE - get PAID .... by the GOVERNMENT .... to live there.

This might not be the case anymore, but it was while Bush was in command.




Just thought it might be relevant to your debate.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: Spiramirabilis

So, what you're saying is Jesus doesn't have a dog in this fight?

Cool - I still say Bernie gets Jesus more than the rest of that embarrassing mob

But, that's neither here nor there - is it?

It's totally here and there.

"Oh, I shared my bacon with my wife, but it pissed me off because I didn't willingly give it to her."

Bernie understands it. And ANYONE who continues to say that "capitalism" works via "trickle-down" is, well - probably mentally challenged, probably overweight from having too much food, probably living beyond their means, and also probably not looking at anything except their own greedy selfishness.

Just saying.

They don't get that EVERYONE would be okay if we adopted Democratic Socialism. They don't "care" to 'get it.' They just keep comparing it to "Communism", and ignoring actual information, such as:

Lol, that is a meme and it's not even true.

A reliable estimate of the average salary for teachers in Denmark is somewhat tricky to calculate due to variables such as tenure and location. However, a 2014 estimate provided an income figure of just under $42,000 per year for Danish teachers (not $61,000). And it's slightly simplistic to say all healthcare is free in Denmark, as the cost of medical care varies depending upon residency status and coverage level.

The meme goes on to claim that the minimum income tax is 40% in Denmark (where tax revenue indeed comprised 48.6% of the country's GDP in 2013). Taxpayers in Denmark are subject to a progressive tax structure under which total taxes are between 41 to 56 percent of income

Snopes

People believe anything! We really are in trouble.

a reply to: jjkenobi

So the Danish teacher makes 61k a year before taxes.

It doesn't say "before taxes" anywhere that I can see.

Just reread it. It says that they own homes, get medical care (including parental leave for a YEAR) have universal education, and a pension. EVERYBODY gets a "pension" at age 65.

Remember 'pensions'? Do you even know what that is?

It doesn't happen here in the US anymore unless you're a govt employee. No more corporate pensions, no more job security, no more guaranteed retirement. More likely, your job will get off-shored and you'll be left without work. You might even be forced to train your replacement who lives in Taiwan or India!

I'm thinking Denmark sounds pretty damn sweet right now.
I've been to Norway, had friends there - visited them back in 96. it was lovely. But, that's another story for another time. I'll just say I didn't see ANY "slums" or "ghettos". Nope! And I was in Oslo, Bergen, and Stavanger.....hosted by unrelated people who were unacquainted with one another.

It changed my life forever.

a reply to: jjkenobi

Exactly, and it's actually much worse than the false meme portrays. I posted the link to the Snopes, but here it is again -

Snopes - that meme is full of lies

Denmark is the highest-taxed Nation in the World — taxed an average 80% on every dollar earned. Danes have the highest personal debt in the World. Few will ever own a car or a house. Anyone who makes over $80,000 annually pays a personal tax of 68%. This means that people with higher earnings have either found ways to evade the tax or have left the Country, taking their companies with them.

This one is accurate:

a reply to: raedar

LOL!! Very interesting omission of the rest of the snopes analysis (which says "mixed" as to True or False).

It's true that pension kicks in for Danes at the age of 65.

The original meme claimed that the average American spent $8,500 per year in deductibles; the Centers for Disease control placed average total spending per patient per year at $9,255 in 2013. We were unable to find a figure that specifically referenced "deductibles" as a health care expenditure-related metric, but the number cited closely matched World Bank figures for per capita health expenditures.

Cited college costs for students in the United States in the first meme weren't exaggerated either -- data from 2014 placed the yearly cost of tuition at a low of $18,943 (for in-state public schools) and a high of $42,419 (for out-of-state private schools). If it's surmised that three out of four students attend a local college at the cheaper tuition and one heads off to a private university, the average tuition between those four students would be $24,812.

Finally, Denmark's novel "flexicurity" policy deviates from other European nations' worker protection policies (which are unlike American "at will employment" standards). While Danes can be more easily fired than those in other European countries, the country offers robust unemployment insurance compensation to level out labor market fluctuations.

In short, it's true Denmark's taxes are far higher than those in the United States, but that's offset by significantly reduced costs to citizens for expenditures such as healthcare, education, and child care.

Fact vs meme-war.

A gallon of gas doesn't cost Danes anywhere near $10, but tax on new cars is 180%.

We were unable to find any ranking of Denmark as the "highest-taxed" nation in the world (or even just Europe), and home ownership rates are near what they are in the U.S. (There are far more privately-owned vehicles in the United States than Denmark, however.)

Denmark's suicide rate is lower than that of the U.S., and antidepressant usage is higher among Americans.

Finally, while some young Danes moved abroad due to high taxes on income, we were unable to find any evidence that was the case for companies.

In other words, companies stay put. People are in general secure and happy.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

I obviously cannot post the entire article from Snopes, so I quoted what was misquoted in the Meme you were saying :

They just keep comparing it to "Communism", and ignoring actual information...

Well, the info is full of LIES.

Also, what does it matter if you can retire at 65 if you're massively in debt? LOL wow

a reply to: raedar

You chose what part of the article to post, and you LEFT OUT the part showing that your chosen 'points' were, erm, not backed up by the article. In other words, your claim - as you tried to slide it past us - was false.

The fact that you did THAT is true.

Fail.

Very disappointed.

originally posted by: BuzzyWigs
a reply to: raedar

You chose what part of the article to post, and you LEFT OUT the part showing that your chosen 'points' were, erm, not backed up by the article. In other words, your claim - as you tried to slide it past us - was false.

The fact that you did THAT is true.

Fail.

Very disappointed.

You posted a meme with inaccurate information and I posted the information contrary to your Meme. Way to try and deflect the truth. WOW. Admit you posted false information!

I don't think the Danes are in crushing debt when they retire. I think that's a distortion of the truth.

Keep in mind that USA has a form of socialism already, but it's broken and expensive and peacemeal and, well crap. We have ObamaCare when we should have a Universal Healthcare system. Denmark is one country that looks pretty good right now to me too. Not saying that everything is great about it. It's a country. All Countries have problems. They do a lot of things right over there. Most of the Nordic countries do a lot of things right, we should copy some of their solutions.

a reply to: raedar

Just out of curiosity, as a reader of the thread ... are you saying that you believe that anything at Snopes is 100%, bar none, with no other information from anywhere, the incontrovertible truth?

I have a good deal of respect for the Snopes.com website in general, but even I don't believe that.

Facts are either accurate or they're not.

Also, as BuzzyWigs pointed out, you only posted portions that SEEM (out of context) to support what you're claiming.

I'm not sure it's Buzzy that needs to admit something here.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
LOL You're free to live how you choose. But the actual word "charity" comes from a Christian background. So it's funny to me when I see people speak of giving to "charity" while rejected where the word came from.

You are free to rename what I do with my time and money to a non-Christian secular noun if you choose. I tend the use the word for its convenience in explaining my actions, not for its etymology.

Nope. I'm not placing words in your mouth. You're an adult (probably) & so you can use whatever words you feel like, including "charity".

But like I said way earlier, "charity" isn't voluntary, just as zakat isn't voluntary. This whole exchange started simply because I pointed that out. People in this thread keep trying to link charity & the Prophet Jesus' intentions to it being voluntary, even though that contradicts his own words.

Meh. No offense, but I'm getting bored with this. Can we just agree to disagree here?

originally posted by: enlightenedservant
But like I said way earlier, "charity" isn't voluntary, just as zakat isn't voluntary.

My time and money that I choose to donate most certainly are. I am not Christian or Muslim so I have no mandate to do what I do. I do them because I want to.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: raedar

Just out of curiosity, as a reader of the thread ... are you saying that you believe that anything at Snopes is 100%, bar none, with no other information from anywhere, the incontrovertible truth?

I have a good deal of respect for the Snopes.com website in general, but even I don't believe that.

Facts are either accurate or they're not.

Also, as BuzzyWigs pointed out, you only posted portions that SEEM (out of context) to support what you're claiming.

I'm not sure it's Buzzy that needs to admit something here.

What exactly have I claimed? A meme was posted as an example of socialism working, and I posted a link and snippet of an article highlighting the portions of what were false. I didn't argue for or against Socialism, just pointed out the false information and how people nowadays believe anything they read on a meme.

Since you are questioning Snopes as a source, I am curious how you feel about memes being used as a source?

I haven't even given my opinion on the issue at hand, just pointed out inaccurate info being touted as true.

Interesting the assumptions that are being made, however.

And this particular Snopes article is well sourced. Here's a few (DISCLAIMER - THIS IS NOT A FULL LIST OF SOURCES FROM THE SNOPES ARTICLE, ONLY A SNIPPET OF THE SOURCES)

www.theguardian.com...
www.justlanded.com...
www.nordisketax.net.../dan/eng/i07.asp
stats.oecd.org...
en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: raedar

Way to try and deflect the truth. WOW. Admit you posted false information!

Hm.....

no.
No, I won't. I posted the REST of what snopes said about the truth of the "meme".
I was totally receptive to what you posted. You just didn't continue your argument.

So.

Boo Ya.

a reply to: raedar

You cited one article from one source, in part, that seemed to support your claim that the "meme" that BuzzyWigs posted was FALSE.

Your absolutist claim, in itself, is proven to be FALSE by the same source you quoted ... as shown by BuzzyWigs quotes from subsequent paragraphs in the SAME article.

EDIT: What you are calling a "meme" is really just an impression; people post them for all kinds of reasons. Do you source each and everyone to attempt to prove or disprove the comment each contains? Sometimes they're intended humorously, sometimes sarcastically, etc.

No one source is 100% correct or incorrect. Other sources can prove or disprove all or part of any other source. What's your point?

My point is, Raedar, that the Snopes.com article that you posted DISPROVES your contention. Are you just not getting that?

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lol, well I can't say this is surprising, although I'm not sure what you mean by "totally receptive". If by " totally receptive" you mean you tried to twist the argument by claiming "omission" (when in reality, I was simply pointing out what was wrong on the meme), then ok.... haha.

At least the Snopes article illustrated the lies portrayed in the meme, as well as highlighted some of the huge problems with Socialism.

originally posted by: raedar
a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Lol, well I can't say this is surprising, although I'm not sure what you mean by "totally receptive". If by " totally receptive" you mean you tried to twist the argument by claiming "omission" (when in reality, I was simply pointing out what was wrong on the meme), then ok.... haha.

At least the Snopes article illustrated the lies portrayed in the meme, as well as highlighted some of the huge problems with Socialism.

But it DIDN'T do that ... that's the point. You're waving your hand at the article and claiming that it proves something it doesn't.

I know you're talking to BuzzyWigs, but we're both involved at this point. I really can't see what your point is, unless you ... just aren't reading the rest of the article.