• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Democratic socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez ousts Joe Crowley in New York stunner, CNN projects

Logicman said:
This just reinforces my belief that the Democratic Party is trending even further left than at any time in history. And that's not good for the Dems.

The further left the Democratic Party goes the more Americans will vote for someone else. The majority of Americans - some 60%, prefer capitalism over socialism.

So trot your socialist prize bull up there for prez in 2020 and watch it go down in flames.
Click to expand...

Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
 
Aristaeus said:
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
Click to expand...

And high taxes that take away options from people on how they want to spend their money otherwise, i.e. Denmark.
 
Surrealistik said:
I'm not sure I'd call 'upper middle class' at best, wealthy or powerful, nevermind pressures created from her father passing away.

I don't see anything fundamentally dishonest about the way she represented her background.
Click to expand...

Wealthy no, powerful depends. But I called neither.

Yeah there is some dishonesty there. The Bronx just like the South Side of Chicago infers a rough and tough sort of existence. It’s worn like a badge of honor.

It irks people from there for people to claim false membership.

Like when people from the surrounding area claim they are South Side or they even claim they’re from Chicago when they live in the suburbs.

Most of the time it’s just good natured ribbing, a lot of pomp and pageantry, but when someone is trying to use it as bona fides the BS gets called out. As it should. You didn’t live that life don’t claim you did. It’s disrespectful to those whose life’s experiences your trying to claim as your own when you have taken no part. Have no clue about what people have gone through.

And no, having empathy for people isn’t the same as living it.

This one will get a pass. But let it have been a white boy who tried to pass this off and you’d have the entire press corp on his ass. Not to mention all the pundits and pulpit pimps crying of cultural appropriation...

That’s not a song for poor whitey, it’s just the truth of the matter.
 
ChezC3 said:
Wealthy no, powerful depends. But I called neither.

Yeah there is some dishonesty there. The Bronx just like the South Side of Chicago infers a rough and tough sort of existence. It’s worn like a badge of honor.

It irks people from there for people to claim false membership.

Like when people from the surrounding area claim they are South Side or they even claim they’re from Chicago when they live in the suburbs.

Most of the time it’s just good natured ribbing, a lot of pomp and pageantry, but when someone is trying to use it as bona fides the BS gets called out. As it should. You didn’t live that life don’t claim you did. It’s disrespectful to those whose life’s experiences your trying to claim as your own when you have taken no part. Have no clue about what people have gone through.

And no, having empathy for people isn’t the same as living it.

This one will get a pass. But let it have been a white boy who tried to pass this off and you’d have the entire press corp on his ass. Not to mention all the pundits and pulpit pimps crying of cultural appropriation...

That’s not a song for poor whitey, it’s just the truth of the matter.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that; she was from the Bronx, and her early childhood (she moved when she was 5) may have been difficult, as well as the time after her father passed away when she and her mother were apparently going through financial distress.

Bottom line, that she lived in a good suburb for a period of time doesn't mean she never struggled at any point of her life; I don't see how one can look at that singular factoid and automatically assume that she's always had it easy, and this is no different if she were white and male.

By the way, I don't think the MSM is in actuality all that happy about her or her success given its obvious sympathies with the establishment Dem wing; I suspect that she'll continue to be given the Bernie treatment as they tight rope between acknowledging her accomplishments, and minimizing them as they already have.
 
Last edited:
Logicman said:
This just reinforces my belief that the Democratic Party is trending even further left than at any time in history. And that's not good for the Dems.

The further left the Democratic Party goes the more Americans will vote for someone else. The majority of Americans - some 60%, prefer capitalism over socialism.

So trot your socialist prize bull up there for prez in 2020 and watch it go down in flames.
Click to expand...

No, a majority of Americans prefer a mix of capitalism and socialism, as does the rest of the world. I am basking in the socialist blessings of Social Security and Medicare, and I will wait for the mail to come today delivered by a government employee before heading down to spend some money at the capitalist grocery store.

If the democrats lean too far left, they will pay for it, ditto GOP and the right.
 
Surrealistik said:
Dunno about that; she was from the Bronx, and her early childhood (she moved when she was 5) may have been difficult, as well as the time after her father passed away when she and her mother were apparently going through financial distress.

Bottom line, that she lived in a good suburb for a period of time doesn't mean she never struggled at any point of her life; I don't see how one can look at that singular factoid and automatically assume that she's always had it easy, and this is no different if she were white and male.

By the way, I don't think the MSM is in actuality all that happy about her or her success given its obvious sympathies with the establishment Dem wing; I suspect that she'll continue to be given the Bernie treatment as they tight rope between acknowledging her accomplishments, and minimizing them as they already have.
Click to expand...

OK. :lol:

Well, then I'm from Roseland. I've lived there, and since it's now apart of what's called the "Wild 100's" and one of the worst neighborhoods in the city, I guess I can consider myself Bad Bad Leroy Brown...:pimpdaddy:

Doesn't matter that I lived there a short period of time in my youth or that it wasn't nowhere near the neighborhood it is now.

I would never say that of course, I mean I've let people know I lived there, but have always qualified it.

I'm not saying she hasn't struggled but there is a narrative there that doesn't fit the facts. Even if it is factual, it doesn't convey the truth of the matter. That's what half of this "Fake News' BS is all about. I call it journalistic impressionism. The picture looks right, but it's off the mark. It isn't too concerned with accentuating the factual details so much as it is concerned with creating an emotional response to the story.

Using my own story as an example. Let me get into politics saying I'm from the Wild 100's and see what happens. I'd be laughed out of the city.

I can't say I disagree with you. I believe they're acting as they always have with her, sensationalizing an upset. Sure the powers that be aren't happy, I mean, what, they covered her twice and begrudgingly at that before she actually won? We can see the way they back-seated Bernie's treatment at the hands of the DNC during his POTUS run that they've got no particular love for her kind. Sure they like to sensationalize him as they will her, but they'll only go so far. She's spouting the right slogans now enough to make her a B list celeb. Impeach Trump, Abolish ICE -- that's all music to the establishment's ears.

I can't imagine the Dem's in Congress are happy about it. They've lost a man in leadership with the seniority to push their agenda ahead or push back against Trump's and/or the GOP's. She'll be given some BS committees and told to know her place and they'll trot her out as needed. But it's not actually a win for the Dems in my opinion.
 
Logicman said:
And high taxes that take away options from people on how they want to spend their money otherwise, i.e. Denmark.
Click to expand...

Worshipping at the altar of choice. Being able to choose between two crap options is not better than only having one available good option.

Denish people have a higher standard of living so high taxes seen to be providing good results.
 
ChezC3 said:
OK. :lol:

Well, then I'm from Roseland. I've lived there, and since it's now apart of what's called the "Wild 100's" and one of the worst neighborhoods in the city, I guess I can consider myself Bad Bad Leroy Brown...:pimpdaddy:

Doesn't matter that I lived there a short period of time in my youth or that it wasn't nowhere near the neighborhood it is now.

I would never say that of course, I mean I've let people know I lived there, but have always qualified it.

I'm not saying she hasn't struggled but there is a narrative there that doesn't fit the facts. Even if it is factual, it doesn't convey the truth of the matter. That's what half of this "Fake News' BS is all about. I call it journalistic impressionism. The picture looks right, but it's off the mark. It isn't too concerned with accentuating the factual details so much as it is concerned with creating an emotional response to the story.

Using my own story as an example. Let me get into politics saying I'm from the Wild 100's and see what happens. I'd be laughed out of the city.

I can't say I disagree with you. I believe they're acting as they always have with her, sensationalizing an upset. Sure the powers that be aren't happy, I mean, what, they covered her twice and begrudgingly at that before she actually won? We can see the way they back-seated Bernie's treatment at the hands of the DNC during his POTUS run that they've got no particular love for her kind. Sure they like to sensationalize him as they will her, but they'll only go so far. She's spouting the right slogans now enough to make her a B list celeb. Impeach Trump, Abolish ICE -- that's all music to the establishment's ears.

I can't imagine the Dem's in Congress are happy about it. They've lost a man in leadership with the seniority to push their agenda ahead or push back against Trump's and/or the GOP's. She'll be given some BS committees and told to know her place and they'll trot her out as needed. But it's not actually a win for the Dems in my opinion.
Click to expand...

I think it's a win in that it's another very important step forward to the platform of social democracy the Dems need to succeed. It clearly isn't enough to stand against Trump; the Dems must also stand _for_ something, and this has been made repeatedly clear to them, including per their own focus groups and studies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xs9OkUD7T6E. Without a doubt, this is a serious blow to the hegemony of the Democratic establishment.

Like Bernie, she seems to be playing the long game, and though she may be content to play pattycakes with frenemy establishment Dems in the short term, she, like him, will undoubtedly work to displace them and erode their power long term in favour of more progressive and representative candidates (and they know this; the Pelosi panic was amusing to say the least).

Ultimately, I'm not too concerned about how the media presents her, or whether or not she's a bona fide economic underdog; the fact and bottom line is that she is an articulate, charismatic and intelligent representative that supports excellent policies I broadly approve of (though I'm not on board with some of the estab fodder positions like 'Impeach Trump' until Mueller's findings are in; tbh in terms of strategic considerations, Trump is probably the single greatest political gift the GOP have ever given the Dems).
 
Last edited:
Aristaeus said:
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
Click to expand...

"Democratic Socialism" is a term coined by Bernie Sanders supporters to mean precisely what they want it to mean.

In Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, these parties are actually called SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC parties (e.g., the SPD in Germany). Not Democratic Socialist, which is more of an oxymoron, and tends to lower the IQ of the room when it is spoken. I would listen to the arguments of better standards of living more readily if they would get it right once in a while.

Having a social safety net doesn't make you socialist, nor does it injure capitalism one iota. The United States is very, very far from some sort of capitalists' paradise. We are heavily regulated, and have been so since the 1930s (and even earlier to some extent, e.g., anti-trust laws and so forth).
 
Last edited:
Surrealistik said:
I think it's a win in that it's another very important step forward to the platform of social democracy the Dems need to succeed. It clearly isn't enough to stand against Trump; the Dems must also stand _for_ something, and this has been made repeatedly clear to them, including per their own focus groups and studies
Click to expand...

I can't argue with your assessment for the most part. I do believe to the left is where the DNC is headed. Or at least that's where the youth want it to head. Corporate Dems aren't going to give up their power easily and it will be a long drawn out battle. Perhaps an outsider will come in like Trump did and turn the apple cart over allowing for serious momentum but it would be premature to think any meaningful handing over of power will be likely seen for the next 10 years at least. As you stated, it is a long game they'll be playing.

Well, the polish is bound to rub off. She got elected, now the thing to see is if she will get reelected. What's more, will she get reelected with her soul intact. 2 years isn't a very long time and as we see, most of it is spent on getting reelected more so than actually doing any meaningful sort of governing. Will that turn her into just another member of the establishment? Can she remain independent, fresh, new, and inspiring? Does she have the fortitude to make the right choices when they come up, and vote against her caucus or will she toe the party line like a good soldier? The youth if anything admirable can be said about them do demand genuineness. They can smell an imposter a mile away and will cast her off like yesterdays trash if she doesn't meet expectations.

Trump should have been the single greatest gift to the GOP. The GOP however, as forever seems to be the case as of late, is blowing their opportunity. This doesn't really effect them as I will explain.

As the Dems used to be the party of labor and the little guy the GOP was for patriots, military and yes, the fat cats. The Dems wanted money so they turned into Corporate dems and the GOP wanted the love of the People so they turned into big government advocates.

Both of course try to convince their constituents of the opposite. That they still are the defenders of labor, that they still are the rugged individualists, self sufficient patriots. But truth is they're both the same. Liberal Globalists. Like the Bolsheviks and Mensheviks were the same only at different points on their political spectrum, the Bolsheviks (GOP) are more to the right while the Mensheviks(Dems) to the left. But they are pretty much the same thing. (Trotsky a Menshevik turned Bolshevik (Lenin) without the slightest hesitation when he seen how the tide turned)

The GOP with Trump could have distanced themselves from his unsavoriness all the while championing his causes, causes that they are supposedly as conservatives supposed to champion. The truth of it is, they are no longer that party. Neither are the Dems. So what we see is a Left swing and a right swing respectively. We see these swings because the people want genuine distinctions. Distinctions that go beyond party names and platitudes.

The Right's swing (Tea Party)was unfortunately, while grass roots and authentic in its rank and file members, paid for and promoted by disingenuous cretins.

The Left's swing (many different factions, but will talk about the DemSoc movement) is burgeoning, is getting well organized but isn't currently getting the dollars necessary for it to make a significant show. Nor do I believe it will ever get the funding to make it a force to be reckoned with.

CorpDems and EstabGOP, (i.e. Liberal Globalists) are far too dug in.

So they too will need a charismatic leader, or a personaiity to form a cult around, one allot like Obama but who actually has the fortitude to go through that which he has promised, as he promised it.

In that, Obama was a complete failure. No way around it. I voted for him in 2008 only to be sorely disappointed before his first 100 days were up.

DemSoc's are closer to the Establishment than the Right is. As the Soc(ialist) in DemSoc naturally makes the internationalists to begin with. Hand in hand with the liberal globalists now in control. However rather than the Nordic model, expect to see Chinese characteristics introduced more and more. that's the nature of the beast.

After Trump I don't really see anyone on that side rising up to carry on his standard. Sure you've got some that talk the talk but they aren't really genuine. Those that are genuine aren't election worthy. Don't have the chops so to speak.

This is where the GOP has made the horrendous mistake, if in fact I believed it to be a mistake. They have no one who has aligned themselves close enough with Trump on the issues to carry on the work he's done.
 
JimHackerMP said:
"Democratic Socialism" is a term coined by Bernie Sanders supporters to mean precisely what they want it to mean...
Click to expand...

Democratic Socialism is very much its own thing and not really an 'oxymoron', though yes, its traditionally definition features policy that substantially differs from Bernie and his camp supports which is indeed Nordic/North/Western European social democracy. I've always thought Bernie's use and adoption of the term to be curious, and can only conclude that he wanted to preempt/get out in front of and diminish the inevitable red/socialist scare that the GOP (and corporate Dems) would inevitably attack him with.


ChezC3 said:
I can't argue with your assessment for the most part. I do believe to the left is where the DNC is headed. Or at least that's where the youth want it to head. Corporate Dems aren't going to give up their power easily and it will be a long drawn out battle. Perhaps an outsider will come in like Trump did and turn the apple cart over allowing for serious momentum but it would be premature to think any meaningful handing over of power will be likely seen for the next 10 years at least. As you stated, it is a long game they'll be playing.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that 10 year time line; honestly, they've made progress far faster than I've ever anticipated. I think the real litmus test will be the presidential primary in 2020.

Well, the polish is bound to rub off. She got elected, now the thing to see is if she will get reelected. What's more, will she get reelected with her soul intact. 2 years isn't a very long time and as we see, most of it is spent on getting reelected more so than actually doing any meaningful sort of governing. Will that turn her into just another member of the establishment? Can she remain independent, fresh, new, and inspiring? Does she have the fortitude to make the right choices when they come up, and vote against her caucus or will she toe the party line like a good soldier? The youth if anything admirable can be said about them do demand genuineness. They can smell an imposter a mile away and will cast her off like yesterdays trash if she doesn't meet expectations.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and while I certainly think there is always the possibility she might turn and/or become complacent, at the end, she, and people like her, are ultimately the best hope of advancement the Dem party has, so, for better of worse, that's where progressive hopes lie.

Trump should have been the single greatest gift to the GOP. The GOP however, as forever seems to be the case as of late, is blowing their opportunity. This doesn't really effect them as I will explain...
Click to expand...

I agree with most of what you say concerning the Dem party trading in its soul and abandoning its proud FDR tradition in favour of Clintonian third way politicking, but when it comes to your labeling of them 'Liberal Globalists', I completely dissent. The label of 'Globalist' is fair enough (and not necessarily a bad thing), but liberalism? At best it's traditional economic liberalism and social liberalism but even there, it's a skewed sort that can be more accurately described as corporatism more than anything else, with the Republicans featuring a much harsher and less compromising or reconcilatory stance relative to the Dems, though they both ultimately side with and champion the rich and powerful.

As to Trump being a standard to aspire to, or a positive thing, I completely disagree; the guy is, in my view, performing surgery with a sledgehammer and swinging blindly in the process, and he's his own worst enemy, GOP machinations aside; moreover, like the Dems and Repub establishment, he still ultimately favours the rich and powerful per his actual legislative outcomes. Sure, he has taken token stabs at some corporates that rely on cheap labour from illegal immigration, and killed the TPP while challenging other free trade agreements, but by and large his administration has been an absolute boon to the wealthy, and Wall Street in particular (even though he railed against its evils, excesses and exploitative nature on the campaign trail).

What is in place now has precious little to do with DemSoc; though neoliberal corporatism may be closer to it than some kind of extremist right wing governance/economic organization, it is still miles apart.

In terms of a leader that is eligible for a presidency and has the staying power, integrity and endurance required for meaningful reform, the only two that come to mind are Bernie and, to a lesser extent, Tulsi Gabbard. Cortez I think has the grit and capacity to inherit Bernie's mantle, but it will be years before she is fit to take it up (and 7 before she can run for the presidency).
 
Last edited:
Unitedwestand13 said:
It’s primary night in New York and tonight we have a stunner out of Congressional district 14.

Per CNN



https://www.cnn.com/2018/06/26/poli...ez-joe-crowley-new-york-14-primary/index.html

Joe Crowley is the 4th ranked democrat in the house, he was considered to be Nancy Pelosi’s choice of who should replace her as house speaker if Democrats manage to retake the house this November. Yet here we have the number 4 Democrat of the house, the chair of the Queens County Democrats, and a 10 term incumbent being beaten by a first time candidate who ran to joe Crowley’s political left and won.

It may have more to do with local politics but this primary should be a wake up call to National Democrats. The Progressive wing of the Democratic party is Energized and is not going to accept the paltry status quo of the party establishment.
Click to expand...

It's taken a long time, but we're finally seeing the fruits of our labor, brother. Pelosi can say whatever she wants to publicly save face, but she's terrified.
 
JimHackerMP said:
"Democratic Socialism" is a term coined by Bernie Sanders supporters to mean precisely what they want it to mean.

In Scandinavia and other parts of Europe, these parties are actually called SOCIAL DEMOCRATIC parties (e.g., the SPD in Germany). Not Democratic Socialist, which is more of an oxymoron, and tends to lower the IQ of the room when it is spoken. I would listen to the arguments of better standards of living more readily if they would get it right once in a while.

Having a social safety net doesn't make you socialist, nor does it injure capitalism one iota. The United States is very, very far from some sort of capitalists' paradise. We are heavily regulated, and have been so since the 1930s (and even earlier to some extent, e.g., anti-trust laws and so forth).
Click to expand...

Yeah, Bernie Sanders invented the term before he was born. That's a really strong argument.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
If the democratic base is energized this November, the republicans will lose the house and possibly the senate
Click to expand...

The sitting Presidents party losing a large number of Congressional seats during the midterms is usually a foregone and it seems like it should be a cakewalk for the Dems given Trump's in office

Thing is it's not looking good for the Democrats and they have only themselves to blame. They have no coherent message and have never really recovered as a party from
Hillary's loss. Trump hatred and rage coupled with Left wing talking points won't be enough to win back the majority

If Occasio is truly the future of the Democratic party then their days are surely numbered.
 
Aristaeus said:
Democratic socialism is not actually socialism, it's more akin to places like Norway and Sweden. i.e. high standards of living, low income inequality, and high levels of social happiness.
Click to expand...

Norway and Denmark are market economies and are listed in the top 10 Countries to do business in. They are pro-profit and Capitalist
Even though Sanders and his supporters like to use Scandanavian Counties as a example, the Nordic model is not what they have planned for the US

Sanders and Ocasio, if they had their way would nationalize large sectors of the US economy, starting with Healthcare. Sanders wants to break up the banks, and impose unprecedented regulatory control over the financial sector

Their example would more of a South / Central American style of Socialism and it would be a complete disaster

Ocasio tweeted out recently that Democracy, not Socialism was the fault of what's currently occuring in Venezuela. She's a utter imbecile if she truly believes that
 
Fenton said:
Norway and Denmark are market economies and are listed in the top 10 Countries to do business in. They are pro-profit and Capitalist
Even though Sanders and his supporters like to use Scandanavian Counties as a example, the Nordic model is not what they have planned for the US

Sanders and Ocasio, if they had their way would nationalize large sectors of the US economy, starting with Healthcare. Sanders wants to break up the banks, and impose unprecedented regulatory control over the financial sector

Their example would more of a South / Central American style of Socialism and it would be a complete disaster

Ocasio tweeted out recently that Democracy, not Socialism was the fault of what's currently occuring in Venezuela. She's a utter imbecile if she truly believes that
Click to expand...

Norway and Denmark have nationalised healthcare. In fact, every developed nation in the world does, except for America. It is the proven superior method. Not perfect, but far better than the privatised American system.

Increased regulation of the banks could have prevented the 2008 global financial crisis. Regulation is not a bad thing. The checks and balances in the US political system is a form of regulation.
 
Aristaeus said:
Norway and Denmark have nationalised healthcare. In fact, every developed nation in the world does, except for America. It is the proven superior method. Not perfect, but far better than the privatised American system.

Increased regulation of the banks could have prevented the 2008 global financial crisis. Regulation is not a bad thing. The checks and balances in the US political system is a form of regulation.
Click to expand...

First, European Nations and Canada have the advantage of not having to fund a military large enough to check first Soviet aggression and now Russian aggression into Western Europe.

Since 1949, the US has spent over 30 Trillion dollars on defense and to this day Nations like Canada still can't seem to meet their agreed upon 2 Percent of GDP defense spending. I wonder how awesome their Singlepayer systems would be if they were forced to fund their own defense ?

American tax payers have essentially been subsidizing their Singlepayer systems and have been doing it for decades.
Next, if anyone wants to know how they or their children would be treated under a American single payer system, they can look no further than how the VA treats our Veterans

Vets were allowed to languish on hidden waiting list for years without treatment and to this day no one's been held accountable
This is what people would lose under a American single payer system. Accountability and recourse.

Authortarianism isnt Progressive and neither is Socialism. It's down right archaic

Finally, it was Govt regulations that caused the 2008 Financial crisis. Banks were forced to abandon lending standards under the threat of DOJ prosection. These standards hat had kept the industry stable and solvent for decades

Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards for loans they purchased and bought Trillions of dollars of substandard risky loans that were then turned into AAA rated MBSs and sold to capital markets all over the world

When it was all said and done, the GSEs were insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt and Banks were stuck holding worthless agency MBSs that were purchased by the Fed as a part of QE.
 
Fenton said:
First, European Nations and Canada have the advantage of not having to fund a military large enough to check first Soviet aggression and now Russian aggression into Western Europe.

Since 1949, the US has spent over 30 Trillion dollars on defense and to this day Nations like Canada still can't seem to meet their agreed upon 2 Percent of GDP defense spending. I wonder how awesome their Singlepayer systems would be if they were forced to fund their own defense ?

American tax payers have essentially been subsidizing their Singlepayer systems and have been doing it for decades.
Next, if anyone wants to know how they or their children would be treated under a American single payer system, they can look no further than how the VA treats our Veterans

Vets were allowed to languish on hidden waiting list for years without treatment and to this day no one's been held accountable
This is what people would lose under a American single payer system. Accountability and recourse.

Authortarianism isnt Progressive and neither is Socialism. It's down right archaic

Finally, it was Govt regulations that caused the 2008 Financial crisis. Banks were forced to abandon lending standards under the threat of DOJ prosection. These standards hat had kept the industry stable and solvent for decades

Fannie and Freddie lowered their standards for loans they purchased and bought Trillions of dollars of substandard risky loans that were then turned into AAA rated MBSs and sold to capital markets all over the world

When it was all said and done, the GSEs were insolvent holding over 5 Trillion dollars in debt and Banks were stuck holding worthless agency MBSs that were purchased by the Fed as a part of QE.
Click to expand...

That two percent is a future spending agreement, not a current spending agreement. Best not to repeat what comes out of Trump's mouth; it's very rarely correct.

You talk about accountability and recourse in healthcare. You can't vote a CEO out of his role for doing a bad job, but you can a politician.
 
Aristaeus said:
That two percent is a future spending agreement, not a current spending agreement. Best not to repeat what comes out of Trump's mouth; it's very rarely correct.

You talk about accountability and recourse in healthcare. You can't vote a CEO out of his role for doing a bad job, but you can a politician.
Click to expand...

Considering the US has been responsible for 90% of NATOs funding and military capability since 1949, 2% is nothing, and still our NATO partners can't meet it

Like I said, the US taxpayer has been subsidizing the single payer systems in Western Europe and Canada for decades.
The Truman doctrine set the stage for American foreign policy from 1949 to 1989, and even after the Berlin Wall fell we continued to fund a military large enough to check Russian aggression into Western Europe

Our NATO partners we're more than willing to allow the US to fund their defense, while they spent their money experimenting with Socialism

And there will be no recourse under a American single payer system, or accountability.
Once socialized healthcare is implemented in the US, oversight will become impossible. No matter how poorly run it is, how expensive it becomes or how much damage it does to our economy, it will be seen as a success by Left wing ideologues who care more about the implementation of their agenda than average Americans

Obamacare was a disaster, and the Left still tried to defend it. Singlepayer will be no different
 
Fenton said:
Considering the US has been responsible for 90% of NATOs funding and military capability since 1949, 2% is nothing, and still our NATO partners can't meet it

Like I said, the US taxpayer has been subsidizing the single payer systems in Western Europe and Canada for decades.
The Truman doctrine set the stage for American foreign policy from 1949 to 1989, and even after the Berlin Wall fell we continued to fund a military large enough to check Russian aggression into Western Europe

Our NATO partners we're more than willing to allow the US to fund their defense
Click to expand...
This is all true...except for subsidizing single payer systems. Single payer systems and government provided healthcare was first instituted in Germany in the 1800's. The UK which meets it's NATO demands has a government health care system.


And there will be no recourse under a American single payer system, or accountability.
Once socialized healthcare is implemented in the US, oversight will become impossible. No matter how poorly run it is, how expensive it becomes or how much damage it does to our economy, it will be seen as a success by Left wing ideologues who care more about the implementation of their agenda than average Americans
Click to expand...

A single payer system is literally the government taking out the insurance middle man...it's the collection of money and the processing of payment. What's damaging our economy is the US paying much more in healthcare than other wealthy countries. We already insure the most costly, most risky population in the country....old people.
 
iliveonramen said:
This is all true...except for subsidizing single payer systems. Single payer systems and government provided healthcare was first instituted in Germany in the 1800's. The UK which meets it's NATO demands has a government health care system.




A single payer system is literally the government taking out the insurance middle man...it's the collection of money and the processing of payment. What's damaging our economy is the US paying much more in healthcare than other wealthy countries. We already insure the most costly, most risky population in the country....old people.
Click to expand...


If after the war our Western European allies were forced to match the Soviets militarily funding and capability without us, they would have not been able to afford a single payer system.

So yes, the American tax payer has been subdizing their and Canada's Singlepayer system for decades and our NATO allies not only support massive US defense spending , they exploit it.

As for drug prices, we don't have to Nationalize 1/6 of our economy to address rising drug cost. Proponents of single payer seem to have forgotten Vermonts failed attempt to implement a single payer system that was signed into law in 2011

Green mountain care was basically shelved after the State realized that the tax increases needed to fund their single payer system would have collapsed the State and local economy

Vermont would have had to basically double their 1 billion dollars in annual revenue to fund Green mountain care. Massive tax increases on small businesses and the middle class would be far more detrimental to the economy than rising drug cost
 
Fenton said:
If after the war our Western European allies were forced to match the Soviets militarily funding and capability without us, they would have not been able to afford a single payer system.

So yes, the American tax payer has been subdizing their and Canada's Singlepayer system for decades and our NATO allies not only support massive US defense spending , they exploit it
Click to expand...

US defense spending goes towards maintaining a global presence that allows us to fight on multiple front. If NATO didn't exist, we would still spend a ton of money to continue our philosophy of being able to fight on multiple fronts at once.

The idea that we spend so much on defense because of NATO is just false. They benefit from it, as does most countries in the world, but the US benefits from a world system where we were the ones that basically wrote the rules.


As for drug prices, we don't have to Nationalize 1/6 of our economy to address rising drug cost. Proponents of single payer seem to have forgotten Vermonts failed attempt to implement a single payer system that was signed into law in 2011
Click to expand...
We're not nationalizing healthcare, we would be nationalizing health insurance. The people that literally take all of our money and then turn around and pay the hospital.

You don't really have to point to Vermont...as you mentioned almost every country in the world has a Single Payer system and it's cheaper.


Green mountain care was basically shelved after the State realized that the tax increases needed to fund their single payer system would have collapsed the State and local economy
Click to expand...
Not true at all.

Vermont would have had to basically double their 1 billion dollars in annual revenue to fund Green mountain care. Massive tax increases on small businesses and the middle class would be far more detrimental to the economy than rising drug cost
Click to expand...
They also has a lot of exemptions in their plan for multi state companies.

We have a broken system plain and system. We have a large number of people uncovered and we sink an enormous amount into healthcare.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom