Is just socialism with more steps
Orange Man Bad
Orange man bad
. / | |
. / | |
Almost landed it
@megamanx181x, maybe next time!
@megamanx181x, if only he had done it my way.
@megamanx181x, quick, try it again
This kind of picture is accepted by those who don’t understand or cant even comprehend democratic socialism or even democracy for that matter. Nor do they understand the current paradigm.
@Implicit88, found the edgy commie kid
@Implicit88, do you think you understand democracy? Democracy is mob rule. It’s the oppression of the minority by the majority.
@big freedom, what? Democracy is oppression now? Wow
@mayora13, what part don’t you understand? Wait, do you think America is a democracy?
@Implicit88, man this is an advanced NPC
@big freedom, not sure what part of my comment made you believe I said america is a democracy, cause I never said that, like at all. I'm just amazed at the stuff people say online. And america is a constitutional republic, I do read stuff!
@mayora13, you seemed shocked by the comment that democracy is mob rule and the oppression of the few by the many. I was surprised at your surprise. I assumed that you, like implicit88, don’t understand what democracy is. My mistake
@big freedom, i agree that democracy can be somewhat equated to mob rule since by definition both are controlled by the people. However, the difference is that mob rule usually has no laws or structure or judges. Mobs are law creators, justices, jury’s and executioners. Democracies spread this out to different branches. But yes, i see your point, on a high level they seem similar but upon further understanding you can see clear differences
@big freedom, i dislike communism, but unlike you i see problems with the current system in the long run, even the near future. All data points problems in the future. There are 2 reasons nations begin to fall, invasion by a powerful external force or unequal wealth distribution. The 2nd will come to pass at some point if we don’t adjust trajectory. Equating communism to socialism is just plain ignorance. Socialism is essentially the center between communism and capitalism. Most people also believe that one form of economic system is the best but that is untrue. Economic systems need to be flexible and change overtime as people and technology evolve.
@LoveTheBomb137, not sure i get your comment.
@mayora13, the spin on big freedom is real. I dont think he/she has much analytical skills.
@Implicit88, whenever I see the word paradigm I pronounce it "paradigem" then I picture the Smacks frog saying, "I paradig'em"
@big freedom, what I'm shocked at, is that you are not using the modern meaning of democracy. A government by the people, exercised either directly or through "elected officials" you are stuck on the democracy from ancient Greece. There's no such a thing as pure democracy anymore.
@Implicit88, nice ad hominem attack. And completely incorrect. That’s the difference between us. You apparently see things as you’d like them to be, I see things as they are.
You think that more government control would alleviate the problems. I have seen all evidence point to the more that government gets involved, the more inefficient and ineffective the solution is.
My analytical abilities (btw that’s my job. I work for a data and analytics company for 5+ years now and have been promoted 3x because of proven track record. Also have BS in microbiology and minor in chemistry- both extremely analytical majors) are demonstrably good.
For the record I’ve never once said that “I don’t see problems with the current system” but because I happen to disagree with you on what the solution looks like, I lack analytical ability? That’s an interesting thought process you go through... no built in confirmation bias at all!
@big freedom, so basically you are in favor of anarchy,if more govt is bad?That would mean less govt is good. The problem is not govt its govt/economic structure. I say you lack analytical ability because you aren’t able to simply differentiate between mob rule and a structured democracy. You just make a statement thats purposely misleading. As for “qualifications” i am a forensic accountant, but that doesnt mean much to me. What means the most is if you can interpret data accurately about what is happening now and what is going to happen in the future.
@Implicit88, another logical fallacy: straw-man. Less (than current level) gvmt is better. I’ve never once argued for none.
And because I use a quote (attributed to an extremely intelligent founding father) for brevity, I’m not able to distinguish differences? Apparently you are unfamiliar with nuance?
Yes using past performance to predict future is where I’m coming from.
Where in past performance do you see that more federal intervention has had a positive outcome?
I can think of 2 examples: ending slavery and ending segregation.
Both of those examples fall under (what I believe should be) the federal government’s 2 responsibilities:
1. Protect liberties of all people in US
2. Provide for common defense
Anything outside of those 2 should be handled at local level except a tiny number of issues that are handled at state level.
Using the data available, I’ve seen almost all other issues that the federal government has gotten involved with to have a negative affect.
I fight for more restrictions on government and more individual liberty. Basically the basis of our constitution. I believe, based on empirical evidence, that we are becoming too top heavy and restrictive in the way that we govern. Apparently you and I disagree on this. That doesn’t mean that you’re stupid or evil. It means we disagree. Too often now people feel the need to vehemently defend their “side” and attack the “other side”. Rather than having an exchange of ideas, we have to shout down and silence the opposition. This is terrible because it has become R vs D, rather than the people keeping real tabs on what the government is doing. And what they’re doing is stealing from us at an unprecedented level and giving it to themselves and their cronies, while we bicker over issues that they have no interest in changing.
@big freedom, i can think of 28 reasons. 1, the constitution plus 27 amendments. Your most interesting response is protect the liberties. Liberty is a very vague term, would being oppressed by oligarchs be included? Would having out voting power drowned out by big money count? Would gentrification count? All these affect ones liberty by definition. Btw i was asking a question about anarchy, i was not stating thats what you meant. Saying government is bad is like saying a pencil misspells words. Corruption and people are bad, govt inherently is not good or evil. The problem with our democracy is its not for longer for the people by the people. Its for the corporations and 1%, by them. I will agree with you to some extent that there needs to be a separation of powers between the federal govt and state gov. But back to the original topic, socialism or any form of it doesn’t necessarily have to be more governmental than capitalism. Capitalism is obviously failing us.
@Implicit88, those are all true. So why would more government be better. It’s inherently flawed. It’s the best system Available but it’s still flawed. I don’t get how people understand that aspect, but still think that more government is going to solve the problems?? It baffles my mind.
I despise oligarchy and amount of influence Corps have on government. Our politicians are whores for the lobbyists and special interests. Yet people keep acting like voting for more and more government (they’re the whores remember) will be in their own best interest. Those whores will always put their own interest first second and third.
@Implicit88, and all of those 28 reasons above are explicitly designed to limit amount of power the state is allowed to enforce. They’re not granting us liberties, they’re restricting the government’s ability to take those liberties away.
And you’re correct. Liberty is intentionally a broad, vague word. If ones actions do not affect others, the government should not restrict it. i.e drug use, adult sex in any way, trade, etc.
our initial reaction should not be, is this permissible by law, it should be unless is harms another it’s nobody else’s business.
@big freedom, i am not advocating for more government. What i am advocating is for more of a direct social democracy. Where people need to approve things not representatives. This by itself would remove corruption by a few, it will be a lot harder to corrupt a large populace. In other words, remove congress and convert the house numbers and senate into voting power. Next create laws to abolish anything but individuals from donating to any form of political ad. Limit this amount to 2 weeks pay of the average American. Create a cash bucket to fund advertisements for laws with equal cash per law per side. Government limits can be limits on power as well as empowerment for the people.
@big freedom, i agree they are restrictions, but in essence those restrictions give us power. Like the right to bear arms. The right to have a jury trial. They shift power to the people. Technically we have no restrictions for anything we do besides those imposed by laws or morality (we dont need to be given right, but they need to be protected)
@Implicit88, in theory we don’t but in reality we do. Did you read the report where the cbo tried to count the number of federal laws. They couldn’t and said that’s impossible to even know how many federal laws exist.
@big freedom, to make things clear, if the people become the “state” or a large part of it, socialism could not turn into a dictatorship. By only electing a president and supreme court justices and by separating a lot of cabinet position from the presidency can we achieve a truly balanced system. The founding fathers did not foresee enough into the future to predict the power a single agency could have, one could easily argue the cabinet position are more powerful than the president itself due to the direct impact they have.
@big freedom, i can agree there are a lot of laws some are needed and some are not. Heck our tax laws are crazy in themselves. Problem with condensing certain laws is that some people will say they are vague and use that to do things they shouldn’t. The laws could become subjective.
@big freedom, finally someone gets it.
That just sounds like communism with extra steps
I've done this in my garage but to the back of my head. Took a step back and bang. Boo boos.
At least they have institutionalized health care to receive medical treatment for that injury...
@A Blunt Object, too bad they'll die from old age before they actually get to see a doctor about it.
edit: I mean they'll die from waiting so long, not they'll live a long, healthy life and die in their sleep. State healthcare is bad.
@A Blunt Object, of course. Just look at how efficient the VA is!
@big freedom, actually both of my Grandfathers were provided pretty good care from the VA. I’m sure there’s varying levels of care due to the administration and resources of each site, but that exists in private hospitals as well.
@A Blunt Object, so did mine and my brother as well. Doesn’t change the fact that it’s an incredibly inefficient bureaucracy that has needlessly caused incredible harm to many many individuals.
@big freedom, so it’s on the same level as the pharmaceutical and health insurance industries to you then? Are you more comfortable with healthcare decisions being driven by profit? If so that’s cool, I’m not as gung ho on that idea though...
@A Blunt Object, absolutely yes 100%. Free market is always better suited. It increases efficiency and decrease cost due to competition. Permanent bureaucracy has no incentive to do either of those.
@big freedom, don’t get me wrong, there’s good things a free market does, but valuing an individual life is not one of them. That’s why manufacturing jobs get outsourced to countries with low labor costs in the name of efficiency.
On a broader note, I do understand that my way of thinking is anathema to your small government ideals. I’ll yield the close to you, and let’s not junk up this thread with a debate that started with a cheeky comment.
@Doctor Yak, there’s a lot of people who die happy in their beds on Medicare...
@A Blunt Object, and there are plenty of people who die while waiting to be seen and/or treated by a doctor in countries with universal healthcare. Or instead of getting an infection treated they have to get an amputation because they had to wait their turn.
@Doctor Yak, my experience while on vacation in Ireland is counter to this as I walked in and was seen at their version of an urgent care, was referred to hospital, was treated, and left owing 40 euro all in the same day...
@A Blunt Object, that sucks. I'd be pretty upset if some foreigner got priority over me to use my state's healthcare before me just because the government wants the outside world to think they're great.
@Doctor Yak, or you could argue based on experience, and not someone else’s talking points. But hey, whatever floats your boat...
@Doctor Yak, that’s why the US healthcare system is ranked lower than so many of those state healthcare systems.
@Doctor Yak, broke my arm in Canada got treated pretty much immediately. Can’t speak for every hospital but your argument doesn’t stand up to my personal experience
@big freedom, you're wrong because competition does not and cannot exist in healthcare. One company makes the drug you need. Holds the patent for 7 years and your job picks your healthcare plan. And you're in the ER and can't choose to be sent to a cheaper hospital.
@hollow114, you’re wrong because it can and it does. Your statement is moronic. You cherry picked a drug patent which in itself requires government intervention.
How about the number of different lasers that were developed for lasix? How about going to a specific doctor because they’re a lot better than the other doctors.
How about different X-ray machines invented and produced by different manufacturers? How about magnetic resonance machines or cat scan machines or literally infinite number of different devices and procedures produced by infinite number of manufacturers and doctors ALL COMPETING TO BE THE BEST, or most efficient.
We are all now stupider for having heard your response. I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul. And ffs go take a basic economics class.
@big freedom, calm down dude. The basic econ thing is tired. First off half the stuff you mentioned was either discovered by government grants or by other countries. Germany and Japan are the leaders in medical equipment. Canada just discovered a pain med that isn't addictive. Pfizer is based in Ireland. And if you removed patents than there goes your only motivator to invest in any r&d. Also. Hospitals set prices randomly and insurance just pays it. One hospital might do the same procedure for half the cost for no reason but you can't choose where to go. Also. You're acting like America is the only country that invents anything. While all of the pharma companies are international. It's laughable.
@hollow114, I take back what I just said. I’m sorry I didn’t read you statement thoroughly enough.
So in your expert opinion, healthcare boils down to brand name drugs, my company healthcare plan, and the ER?
Care to clarify that before I rebut? Nah? I’ll go on then.
Drugs are developed by private capitalist companies. Of course they compete to get their drugs produced. Then they compete to get docs to prescribe that drug.
Healthcare insurance companies compete to get my companies business and I have a choice of providers or plans to chose from. Or I can buy my own insurance.
If I need to go to a doc, I chose who I want to see. I can chose specialist or gp or nurse practitioner.
Ffs, did you even think at all before making that asinine statement? Or are you that committed to your bias and entrenched in your misplaced beliefs?
@big freedom, for instance a bottle of Ambien 30 count is $3000, why? Who knows. I do. It's because very few people need brand Ambien. You see in pharmacy supply and demand work opposite. Because demand in pharmacy is a fixed number. Demand is based entirely on needs. Not wants. So they can charge whatever they want for whatever. Supply is irrelevant because the costs arent based on a resource. But instead on marketing, and profitability. Because the numbers are all made up. Entirely. A prescription Flonase costs 83 dollars. An over the counter costs 20. Why? Because insurance intently destroys the free market. Yet without insurance drugs can't be as profitable. Everything is fixed. It's worse than a monopoly. But yeah. I gotta go retake econ 3001.
@big freedom, I just recognize that the rest of the world has universal health care. And shockingly those countries still have scientists to research and create new drugs. Because anything meaningful is done via government research grants. Meanwhile drug companies mostly just "invent" something similar to what already exists because their patent is about to expire. A patent, let me remind you. That without would destroy the system. Which is why capitalism is flawed. Especially in healthcare.
@hollow114, speaking of drugs, what the fûck are you on?
If you’ve been told enough times to take basic Econ that it’s become tired... I think maybe you should accept the advice.
Next, What does being in Ireland or UK or anywhere on earth have to do with competition? Do you not understand what that word means?
Next, Where did I put that America is the only country that invents anything?
Next, your whole premise, I assume, is to argue for more government control, and then go on to describe how the industry is fixed and a monopoly WHILE it’s under incredible government control.. but the free market would be worse???????
Dude you’re either an incredible troll or so fûcking stupid that it’s hard to know where to begin!
@hollow114, let’s say for the sake of argument that you’re right about “anything meaningful is done via government grant”. Even that proves your hypothesis (that there is not and cannot be competition) wrong. Unless you believe that every single project gets funded exactly the same? Or do you think perhaps, just maybe... they do something to get more funding... like compete??
@A Blunt Object, anecdotal evidence does not count for more than statistical information, so your personal experience does not matter to me. Just because someone wins the lottery that doesn't mean that everyone that played had the same experience as them.
@The cold hearted man, I'm not saying our healthcare system is any better than anyone else's. I know ours is a mess, but I can guarantee you universal healthcare will only make it worse.
@BearDaniels, Well, that's good and all, and I'm aware that not everyone has the same experience throughout a country. I'm also aware most of the countries that have a universal healthcare system also have private options, which usually provide better service more quickly than the state-run facilities.
@Doctor Yak, so if the overwhelming experience is similar to mine, and statistically countries with universal coverage perform better than the US system where exactly is your argument or evidence?
@A Blunt Object, this is news to me. I suppose I'd have to ask about the metrics used to determine better performance, as well as what you mean by overwhelming, because as far as I'm aware the incredibly long waits and sub-par service are huge problems in all of those countries' state-run facilities. Using a privately-run facility in a country with universal healthcare is not using the state-provided medical services, and thus does not count toward any statistics regarding the effectiveness or efficiency of said country's universal healthcare.
@A Blunt Object, they’re not in the US. They’re in different countries with different laws and values.
Do they have massive amounts of illegal aliens taking advantage of their free healthcare? The answer is a resounding NO.
That makes a huge difference.
Are they in a country where the population is mostly homogeneous? Almost always YES. That makes a difference.
US is very unlike most other nations. This makes a difference.
Could our healthcare be better? Absolutely. In fact it was significantly better before the government got involved in insurance industry. Could our insurance industry be better? Of course.
But, here in the US, the more our government gets involved the worse off we all are.
The government that governs best governs least. - Jefferson I think
@A Blunt Object, similar here. Paid $300 in Europe for blood work, ultrasound, and meds. Here in the usa without insurance it would have easily been $2000. Also it took me a few hours to be seen and checked.
@Doctor Yak, so you’re framing your argument against something that’s not being considered? That’s one way to attempt to gain a point, argue against something that no one is arguing for. Maybe that’s all you have, it’s pretty sad...
@big freedom, your quote comes from Henry David Thoreau.
Here’s my issue with the argument you make. You agree there are issues, but when there are verifiable real world examples in the developed world how to fix this, it’s it won’t work here because I feel it won’t.
You bring up illegal immigration like it has any bearing on this. If you want less illegal immigration pass laws that punish employers that hire them. We may need to increase our legal immigration threshold to fill jobs, but those folks would at least be paying into the system.
There is a lot of “yeah but” to your argument. Deal with those as separate issues, not as a reason to not try a program that has verifiable real world results...
@A Blunt Object, thanks for identifying Thoreau👍🏽.
My observations are based on reality of our situation, I’m a pragmatic skeptic.
I don’t “feel” that they won’t work, I’ve observed what has happened and apply that information to the current scenario.
Of course illegal immigration has bearing on this! Unless you’re suggesting that we let people die if they’re not citizens... you’re not are you? There’s a demonstrable impact there.
And yes the laws should be changed today to deal with employers that hire illegals. The will of the people is there to get that done. Our congress will not get it done because the issue gets people to the polls, on both sides. So it means more as an issue than solving the problem is worth. This is what I’m trying to convey to you. Our government is NOT doing what’s best for the people. It’s doing what’s best for the government.
@big freedom, I’m saying fix the issue with immigration. The root cause isn’t that they can get free healthcare it’s jobs. Yes fear of immigrants gets some to the polls, but the bigger issue is Agriculture Lobbyists whose industries depend on cheap labor.
The good news is that if you’re not happy with government we get to change it by voting. Which brings us back to healthcare. How would you go about influencing change in a private company if you were unhappy? Usually, I’d complain then stop doing business with them, but that’s hard to do when it’s a necessary service...
@A Blunt Object, that’s a great idea. Why didn’t we think of fixing the immigration issue before!? Did you read the entire statement? Did you know that both republicans and democrats have had: presidency, senate majority, and congressional majority all at the same time and had the political mandate to fix the issue but didn’t? Both parties are complicit and both look out for their best interest 1st, their lobbyists best interest 2nd, getting re-elected 3rd. Nowhere in there is “the people’s” best interest. If you don’t realize this you’re not paying attention to reality. You’re seeing things as you want them to be (D’s good R’s bad) rather than as they actually are (D’s bad R’s bad). It’s NOT about R vs D, quit being deceived it’s about P vs G (people be government class) you’re being manipulated into a tribal thought process rather than clearly examining every situation independently and coming to a rational (based on facts and logic not emotions) opinion.
@big freedom, you act like you expect change to happen from the top. The reason any significant change in this country happens is because of activism at the grassroots level leveraging votes to influence change. I have never seen marches demanding e-verify for employment, or better ways to legally immigrate.
I have seen marches for equal pay for equal work, and a livable minimum wage. And guess what? That’s now part of a major party platform.
If you want to effect real change in your government stop bitching about how bad it is on the internet, and go to work making it better. Or call your representative and tell them. Don’t expect them to read your mind...
@A Blunt Object, see I think we’re almost agreeing but maybe talking about two different things. I wish federal government stayed in their lane. They should focus on:
1. Protecting civil rights of all Americans
2. Provide for national defense
3. See items 1 and 2, if a topic is not covered there it is not federal responsibility
But the reality is: federal government has become involved in every aspect of every person daily life. There was an amazing study where they tried to count all federal laws. The people who are in charge of upholding the laws have no idea. It’s impossible to count.
I wish everyone would stop focusing on “orange man bad” or “Obama is a Muslim” fûcking nonsense. They should have ZERO impact on anyone’s daily life. All politics should be at community level except for a tiny number of issues that require state control. And then back to the 2 responsibilities of fed gov.
Reality is different. They are involved, I have voted, wrote to and called my congressional
@A Blunt Object, representative. Am involved at local level where I can affect change.
I keep trying to make this point and no matter which direction you try to take it, I’ll always come back to: free market good, government involvement bad. Because of reality.
@big freedom, we’ve agreed previously that local government tends to be most impactful.
We differ on the role of government, specifically at the federal level. You see it fundamentally as a burden, and I see it fundamentally as a safeguard.
I don’t think we’ll reconcile these differences, but I do appreciate vigorous debate from a passionate individual as yourself.
@A Blunt Object, cheers bro.
That seems like regular socialism but with more steps
Looks more like radical socialism
Really loving the irony of the agent smith meme
It’s just the same thing with a little flair
Just seems like slavery with extra steps.
Not even remotely funny
Ok, diagnostic on the GOP lie machine is all green.
Is there a way to downvote this twice ?
It sounds like socialism with extra steps
I know. That's why Canada is so horrible. Oh wait.
These people are as dumb as the “trickle down economics” people.
Is it just me or are more political pictures being posted than usual?
I don’t understand socialism. Could someone please explain it to me? And In a non biased way.
@Larry The Garry, a simple way to explain it is the government taking over and managing necessary services instead of letting the market do it.
@vampirefork, which would backfire as the government should not have that much control.
@Larry The Garry, or let the market do it and allow people to exploit it without having to answer to anyone. Neither system is perfect.
@vampirefork, nothing would be. It’s choosing between the two evils.
@vampirefork, I’ll embroider your comment. It’s the government taking over, deciding who wins and loses based on who has more influence. Then eliminating competition and increasing bureaucracy to the point where it now takes $100 to buy a coffee mug for the air force
@vampirefork, that’s communism, not socialism