| Hiku said: 1.) You quoted me before I edited it in at the end of my paragraph. "Warren wanted to make that clear." 2.) Thanks for the numbers. I read that he is in the top 3.8% according to: http://fortune.com/2016/02/28/bernie-sanders-socialist-finances/ So whether he is a part of that top 1% or 2% seems debatable. He probably isn't one of the multinational companies hiding their assets in offshore accounts though. 3.) Right, but how many of those regulations are fair to complain about? Business owners in the past for example did not like the Equal Pay Act (no sex discrimination in wages), or regulations against racial discrimination, etc. Times change, and what was unacceptable and complained about before is now standard. 4.) Well you take money from everyone to provide for everyone. It's what taxes in general do. (Except they also go to other things, like weapons and bombs.) The poor tend to be more reliant on that, but none the less. I've never come across anyone who is against that in any of the countries I've lived in in my entire life, whether it's Sweden, Australia, or Japan. The subject has never even come up. The only modern nation in the world this seems to be up for debate in is the US. And I can only imagine why, when politicians try to equate democratic socialism to communism, but leave out the part about every other modern nation functioning this way, and every one of those countries have some form of universal healthcare, and pay less for it, and most have tuition free college as well. |
1. Okay but lets not pretend Dr. Carson isn't a really brilliant man. Look at some of his achievements, it is silly to compare Carson to just anybody coming out of Detroit. I didn't say being born in Detroit qualified him, I simply pointed out that he was given the position for a little bit of identity politics (not sure if i used that term right). Also Carson was running for President so clearly he has thought about what he needs to be done with HUD. "On top of that he has also expressed that he doesn't believe that the government should be supporting people the way HUD is designed to do, as mentioned in the clip." Well since he is Republican I am gonna guess that he said something along the line of low income housing assistance (or some other HUD assistance program) do more harm than good? I don't wanna listen to the CNN version of what he said, do you have the quote? if not, it isn't a big deal. anyways, HUD providing assistance to low income homes will always lead to government depency and make communities unable to sustain themselves. Look at the collapse of the black community due to depency on government assistance.
Was Obama ever part of the Executive branch of government before becoming President? no. Would you have complained about him not being qualified to be head of Executive branch of America without ever been in it? As for what he said about not wanting to cripple the presidency cause he's never run a federal agency, people say things to appear modest all the time. He thought he was qualified enough to be President. Who has experience running a Federal agency before running a federal agency?
2. I only said it matters because he contantly paints the top 1 and 2 percenters as "multimillionaires and billionaires". It is decietful to me, nothing else. I am not saying it matters beyond that. I think he KNOWS top 1 and 2 percent is mostly small business owners and even some uppermiddle class ocupations yet he goes off on tangents about the evil corporations when confornted.
3. I have been learning about entrepreneurialism on my free time and dealing with regulations when employing people is mentioned in every speaker series I attended. So yes, as of right now until I personally look into what all of these regulations actually mean, I am going to take their word that 100 new regulations makes an impact. Justified regulations set in place decades ago do not justify new ones simply because the old ones were justified.
As for Obama. Looking at one positive number can make any president look great. What would have happened if Obama did literally nothing? we would have recovered at a record rate because it was coming from a record low (in decades). Free market always corrects itself. but do you say Obama accelerated the recovery? Unemployment went down but the labor participation rate drastically fell as well. This means people literally gave up for looking for jobs and were no longer included in the unemployment rate. This could be due to 10.2 million more people resorting to government assistance via food stamps which is a 32% increase under Obama. Do you know that Obama added more to the national debt than every other President before him COMBINED, including George Bush? Adjusting for inflation, Obama added 2x as much as George Bush to debt and 3x as much as FDR did per year (remember new deal and wwII). People like to blame Bush tax cuts (some of which Obama extended, as you mentioned) even though that doesn't entirely make sense as Obama added, again, 2x as much as Bush did overall. While i'm at it, what does cutting deficit by 2/3 matter when you increase borrowing to compensate? This is Political slight of hand. I understand you didn't say these last couple things but you did suggest a twice already that Obama was a President worth replicating it seems, and now I am ranting.
https://www.fns.usda.gov/sites/default/files/pd/SNAPsummary.pdf
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000
4. Karl Marx says socialism is a necessary stepping stone to communism. But yes, there are not synonyms. however you are wrong about every other country being democratic socialist. Every western country is FAR more capitalist than socialist. it is a sliding scale as no fully capitalist or socialist country exists. Even North Korea has street food vendors apparently from a youtube video (although I think that is propaganda lol). But at the same time there is no 100% capitalist society. Most of everything in all western countries are run by the free market making them majority capitalist. majority socialist countries ALWAYS failed throughout history. Even these more socialist than USA nordic (and other euro) countries have only recently became more socialist. how long can they sustain themselves? especially after the spendings increase they will see when they can't rely on US defense if Trump is the real deal. NATO mandates that each country spend at least 2% of gdp on defense spending and the vast majority of Nato countries fall short of this because they are just piggy backing off USA defense spending. US spends more than DOUBLE all other NATO countries combined desite them having a larger combined gdp. and they admit having a "over reliance" on US defense services. Point is there are ALWAYS other issues to look at. We would have to pay higher taxes if we had universal health than all of these other countries cause we also provide their defense. would these other countries still be okay with universal health care if they had to pay for their own defense as well?
Most people don't care about economics and will always side with the virtuous "free healthcare for everyone!" stance. but what I said is the truth though. 45% of household in US do NOT pay any federal income tax. it is not "everyone" who pays for socialist programs. And the rich will get very little or nothing from these programs they are forced to pay for through taxes. Private schools are better than public, private hospitals are better (look at Canada), they can't qualify for free food or housing, and so on. The people who pay the most benefit the least. The people who do not pay benefits the most. I am not completely against the idea of universal healthcare but I am against having to many free governments programs at ONE TIME. For the US right now, adding free health care is not the right thing to do. We already have too many living off the government, GDP growth has stalled and labor participation is the lowest in decades. Increasing taxes and providing more government freebies will only make these even worse. And it is poisonous to convince people that these amazing privilidges we should be grateful for and try ween off of are "basic human rights." Here is the notorious quote that ended a certain someone's Presidential run...
“there are 47 percent who are with him[Obama], who are dependent upon government, who believe that they are victims, who believe the government has a responsibility to care for them, who believe that they are entitled to health care, to food, to housing, to you-name-it.” - Mitt Romney
source: http://dailycaller.com/2015/10/07/in-2015-45-percent-of-americans-will-pay-no-federal-income-taxes/#ixzz4WTsK2kPr
