The Berniephobes are wrong

Yes I'm good with that. His job isn't about science. It is about administration.

 

I said exactly opposite. This is getting very boring.

 

Nowhere did you state that.

that’s funny. You think people are capable of administrating something they don’t believe in, effectively when lives are at stake. Doctors and career officials who tell the truth, were all cancelled out of Sunday morning talk shows, so pencev could give his shtick ? It’s a zoo, and zoology has nothing to do with you saying you belive in evolution. Show the quote.

How can YOU have faith in two people who stand by “ science, the epidemic et al, is a hoax.”

 

Yet, you still support his role because you think it’s not important to you that anyone believes in the work they are doing. Huh ?
He is untrusted with saving lives using a method he doesn’t believe in. And, that’s ok with Trump supporters. Unbelievable.....

 

It’s tough trying to support two people you disagree with.....
It has to be getting boring trying to rationalize the same lies, over and over.

 

I agree with you that he was a man of his word, even after the discovery of the loan agreement between the Clintons and the DNC, when frankly, a lot of candidates would have felt free to walk away from any prior commitment.

Not sure I view him as a 'tireless worker for the Dems' otherwise. He is a tireless worker for progressive causes. Insofar as those interests often align with the Democratic Party or specific Democrats, he's our ally. But I don't sense any particular loyalty to our party. He looks at membership as akin to using an umbrella in a storm. He discards it quickly enough once its purpose is served.

 

The "general welfare" means the prosperity of the entire nation, not just an elite few within it.

So rather than social welfare programs, it refers to promoting the entire nation's prosperity, without commenting on how that is to be achieved.
​

.

So you want to talk about ONE way in which a nation's prosperity, enjoyed by the many rather than the few, is to be achieved?
This is your TINA fallacy; it's either capitalism OR socialism.

In fact, we can have democratic socialism, with reward achieved in profit-driven 'invisible hand" markets, AND public sector money creation* for non-market provision of desired services. eg caring for the elderly in their own homes, or rehabilitation of prisoners, or environmental care.

*a detour, for the moment: unfortunately this is not yet widely understood by the public, who believe government has to tax (the private sector) before it can spend. So this means the government is seen as dependent on the private sector for its funding (via taxes) and so we have an ongoing disputes over levels of taxation.

If you want to learn how money is created, Warren Mosler's book is available for free here.

https://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

(on page 15):
SCOTT PELLEY: Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?
CHAIRMAN BERNANKE: It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed, much the same way that you have an account in a commercial bank. So, to lend to a bank, we simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account that they have with the Fed.

(page 16).

The Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank is telling us in plain English that they give out money (spend and lend) simply by changing numbers in bank accounts. There is no such thing as having to “get” taxes (or borrow) to make a spreadsheet entry that we call “government spending.” Computer data doesn’t come from anywhere. Everyone knows that! Where else do we see this happen? Your team kicks a field goal and on the scoreboard, the score changes from, say, 7 points to 10 points. Does anyone wonder where the stadium got those three points? Of course not!...…...
We all know how data entry works, but somehow this has gotten turned upside down and backwards by our politicians, media, and, most all, the prominent mainstream economists.
Just keep this in mind as a starting point: The federal government doesn’t ever “have” or “not have” any dollars. It’s just like the stadium, which doesn’t “have” or “not have” a hoard of points to give out. When it comes to the dollar, our government, working through its Federal agencies, the Federal Reserve Bank and the U.S. Treasury Department, is the score keeper. ie, the ISSUER* of the currency... (And it also makes the rules...that's the government "referee"...) You now have the operational answer to the question: “How are we going to pay for it?” And the answer is: the same way government pays for anything, it changes the numbers in our bank accounts. The federal government isn’t going to “run out of money,” as our President has mistakenly repeated.....

* the private sector, including you and me, is the USER of the currency

Even so, Bernie's plan for a financial transaction tax is very reasonable, since high speed traders are surely the ultimate parasites on the real economy, trying to make a fast buck while adding nothing to the nation's general prosperity in the form of goods and services.

NOT that "X should belong to all of the people", but that X should recognise the contribution of (past and present) Y, and hence X ought to prepared to make a similar just contribution to the current Y (measured via taxation).

Can you see now that it is NOT flawed reasoning?

Depends what you mean by "discounts"...….as explained above, just contribution by the unique individual to the community is not equivalent to "discounting" his unique contribution. There needs to be a balance between the two.

And we (the entire community) benefit from the genius of both of them, via public education, and the consequent production and technologies flowing from their discoveries.

Not at all. We all act primarily out of self-interest; government turns that self interest into the general welfare (general prosperity) as appropriate, in preference to the anarchy of ungoverned self-interest.

I agreed already, above. So let's see where you take this:

Well...…..so you come up with this gem of nonsense:​

" the building of roads had nothing to do with providing something for society".

In a few very restricted cases maybe, eg, a road between two houses or businesses, but otherwise your statement amounts to Maggie's ridiculous assertion there is no such thing as society.

Nothing to do with socialism? But community itself IS socialism, it's a matter of degree. (Dagosa has tried the make this point to you repeatedly). I suppose
this is THE point of departure between the Left and the Right.

The primacy of self-interested individuals of widely varying abilities and aptitudes, over community wellbeing. How much anarchy, poverty and criminality are you prepared to tolerate?

I have replied at length because the issues you raise are significant, if we are to achieve non-ideological-based progress in the nation's level of general prosperity.

 

Your system is old hat. Liberty is the wave of the future starting in 1776 and improving. Tell us, Dagosa, what is your take on private property and the right to own it?

 

Individuals work collectively for the common good. Not cradle to grave care where individuals surrender their responsibilities to government. The common good entails transportation and military. You are the one that supports the theory of Karl Marx. Granted, you are a little more subtle than outright communists but more bold than Joe Biden. Either way, your aims are the same. You know nothing of Liberty. While a good many of us believe our rights are God given and not to be tampered with, you seem to believe our rights are dispensed by government and the elite few who run it. Call it what you will....it ends in Communism and government control.

 

Is it not your FAULT if you get into a bad relationship and choose to stay in it?

 

You asked for substantiation and it was provided so it was you that wanted to go off topic, not me!

Furthermore I deliberately REFRAINED from quoting anything from that source so as to NOT be accused of going off topic which you are now doing instead.

Since I have no intention of further aiding your off topic excursion I am refraining from commenting on your response since it is obviously inflammatory given the intolerance embodied by both Pence and that nefarious law.

Have a nice day!

 

Wrong!

The Founding Fathers instituted the "first government sponsored welfare program".

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...d-law-professor-says-early-congress-mandated/

 

Check a dictionary out...it’s the foundation of socuslism.
Collect-ism -
practice or principle of giving a group priority over each individual in it:

 

What is Trumps take is a better question ? He’s taking private property by eminent domain to build a wall even the gop refuses to fund. It’s laughable how Trump supporters praise the very things in trump they criticize any one not wearing a maga hat for. Private property ?

Why don’t you ask what one of the major role of police is. It’s to protect private property. While you’re sleeping, police normally do security checks for local businesses and are always on call for intrusion, just by calling 911- socialism .

 

Laughable...
The last time anyone looked, theft of anyone’s personal property was still a punishable crime. I really don’t get the Marxism babble.

 

Before I address everything here I'd like to ask...

Seems to me that you believe, and correct me if I am wrong, that any service or positive action taking by the government is a form of socialism. Am I correct in that assessment?

 

It's nice to be able to quote from a professional economist.

www.bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=44417

"One of the enduring myths that mainstream macroeconomists and the politicians that rely on their lies to depoliticise their own unpopular actions continue to propagate is that of ‘central bank independence’. This is the claim that macroeconomic policy- making improved in the ‘neoliberal’ era following the emergence of Monetarism because monetary policy was firmly in the hands of technocratic bankers who were not part of the political cycle...…..

The tenet of the UK Guardian article is straightforward.

The presumption is that central banks are ‘independent’ from the elected politicians who determine fiscal policy (government spending and taxation) and that recent trends – such as the rise of ‘populist’ leaders (when is the elected leader ever not populist?) such as Donald Trump – are threatening to compromise this ‘hallowed’ state.

The presumption is wrong and so all the rest of the analysis that follows from it is thus reflective of the dominant de-politicisation ideology that is one of the central characteristics of neoliberalism."

 

Of course. I'm talking about responsibility, not fault.

 

As I said earlier, boring.

 

The administration exudes hypocrisy.

 

Government, uses a social contract to protect individual rights most people are incapable of doing themselves. It’s people coming together and saying. The constitution is a social document. It’s primary goal is to protect individual rights and freedoms to practice any religion or none, to maintain safety and welfare, and to pursue happiness.

Any thing the starts, “we the people” is pretty definitive. It seems that you don’t believe a government cannot exude more then one trait. Everything has to be all or nothing. It’s a “group” effort to protect individual rights. It’s the opposite to what single minded ness fights all the time. It’s on both the right and left. It’s why independents are increasing. Governments are all mixed economies.

 

You can’t prove your right of ownership of property without a quick claim deed, or other proof of ownership ( cars, houses, land etc.) . You can’t drive, manage a business, work, educate or get legally married without government intervention. It’s been that way for a long time. And now, it’s suddenly offensive because a MAJORITY of the people want to extend socialized medicine which we already have from the military, elderly, poor and in-firmed, to the healthier and younger members of society. That’s peculiar....notice the word society looks a lot like “ social.”

 

A universal characteristic of politicians.

The two words derive from the same root - the latin word "socialis."

 

And that’s why Social security is socialism. That’s why Medicare, Medicaid, chips and every other socialized medical insurance, is socialism.

 

It was Karl Marx who supported the north in the abolition of slavery practiced by the unfettered capitalism of the south. Which side would you be on when it comes to slavery ? Thomas Jefferson or Karl Marx ? Not an easy question to answer. That’s why generalizing doesn’t work for conservatives.

Uncontrolled capitalism breeds slavery for profit......we have a history of it.