You can block Sanders from getting nominated, you can't stop his followers from taking over Congress

There is no further need for you to confirm that you do not know what predatory lending is all about.

 

Oh look...a new sock puppet thread.

Sanders is not even trying for the nomination

 

FYI, Europe is not a country.

 

I did not want Sanders as my nominee . I want do Sanders, and a lot more like him in the halls of Congress. I like the ideas and I certainly like how much Sanders has done to promote them. Having a progressive/socialist coalition in the House and Senate is a wonderful addition to our political discourse. But he was not the right guy to take on Trump this election because he simply had too narrow a demographic and he was unable to expand his political base. What was more telling was the potential impact of this democratic 'socialist' on down ticket races, including swing state Congressional races. We could not afford a backlash that might mean we lost the House, and more Senate seats as well as risk a Trump victory. At least Biden won't scare older voters and moderates from voting for a Democrat to push his platform in a House race.

Sanders as the nominee was an invitation to split ticket voting by a lot moderates and older voters. Just because they liked Sanders as a person and leader better than Trump, does not mean they want to chance his socialist ideas by handing Congress over to him.

Having far left progressive ideas in our legislative bodies and campaigns perculating up, is a great way to give them exposure and ditch their 'socialist' stigma so that they can come forward in 2024, and 2026, and 2028 etc.

 

Educate me then.

What use of force? They freely signed the contract.

 

Interestingly enough the current crop of woke curators are working feverishly to "decolonize" art across the West. The end result of this "decolonization" will be the transfer of priceless works of Western art to Arab/Chinese billionaires. The greatest masterpieces ever created will soon be removed forever from a wide audience. Hilariously the value of the art they are dispensing with will be shown by the 100s of millions of dollars that will be paid for each piece. The "art" that will replace it couldn't be sold for more than a few hundred dollars.

https://www.museumnext.com/article/what-does-it-mean-to-decolonize-a-museum/

This (two works of "art" I could create in a weekend or two):


Will be replacing masterpieces with great historical context like this (Socrates suicide):


The difference between these item in terms of cultural significance is undeniable. This is the left erasing the past of the West to be replaced by something far inferior. The masterpieces of the past cannot be allowed a wide audience for fear of comparisons.

 

Your obsession with your bogus "use of force" is an obstacle to your understanding of predatory lending practices.

 

ALL collections are constantly being REEVALUATED for the purposes of ENSURING that they are RELEVANT to those who will be coming to the museums. This practice is common to other institutions like Public Libraries and it is an ONGOING exercise. Virtually all Public Libraries have REMOVED collections of REFERENCE books from their shelves because they are REDUNDANT in the age of the internet. That space has been REPURPOSED to provide more Community focused projects and activities.

Your misguided attempt to make this into something other than the SOP of museums is amusing.

 

More like Europe is what brought us to the point we now occupy.

 

I understand what you're trying to say - that the desperate situation they find themselves in is a sort of coercion in itself - I just disagree is all.

 

The oligarchy has a stranglehold on both parties, so whatever change of this sort MIGHT happen, it won't come from ether criminal gang that calls itself a party.

 

What kind of "hell" do you have in mind, and who is going to do the raining?

 

Uh...the government IS socialized healthcare

 

Administrative costs of health care are in the cost of medical care delivery and a component of health insurance ( private). On the health delivery side it is estimated / interpolated as going for billing, insurance administration ( dealing with insurance companies) , hospital administration, managing patient appointments , managing physician groups, labs, diagnostic center, on and on. The estimates card that this eats up at least 30 percent.

Another administrative cost is the administrative cost that is buried in insurance company premiums. Individual health insurance premiums can eat up to 26% in admin costs. Small to medium group insurance ( employer sponsored) 12% or so. The large employer sponsored grounds. Have the lowest administrative cost about 4-5%.
I am not talking about the total cost of premiums I am talking about administrating the insurance which involves claim handling, payment to providers, maintaining eligibility processes.

The government does not administer the process of Medicare or Medicaid. That is administered by private insurance companies at a fee of course. The government funds the health care costs but private companies administrate it....process and .pay claims etc. I am sure those of you who thought that the nasty government administers Medicare and holds death panels in swanky hedonistic hotels think again. Oh yes of course us tax payers pay to administer Medicare.

So the cost of health care paid for by the government has an administrative cost which I cannot find quickly.

I am sure there has to be ways to manage these costs but you are not going to be able to run a sophisticated health delivery system without administration.

Part of the administrative cost in our health care system is cost containment and cost management. The Europeans with a single payer system do have lower administration cost but I just do not believe that they are doing well at all in cost. Anage,ent or cost containment.

 

Then vote Democratic. That will accomplish a lot more than vague threats.

Elections matter. Real people in the real world suffered and died because too many of the morally-pure declared themselves to be too morally-pure to vote for Clinton and other Democrats. If seeing that happen again doesn't bother you, then by all means stay home.

 

Your "understanding" still falls way short of the mark in this regard so you are just disagreeing with your own asinine strawman.

Sad!

 

If you have an issue with what I'm saying why don't you explain your position?

 

New approaches to what is considered "economics" must be created in order to have any hope for a future of peace and well being. This excludes nothing. Features of "capitalism", "socialism" "collectivism" or anything else that is functional may be part of the development. The one thing most certain is that the past can at best serve as a model, but cannot be continued.

 

The GOP came up with their Contract ON America in the 1990's that essentially DEREGULATED corporations but they had a hard time when it came to deregulating banks and the stock market because of what caused the Great Depression. Banks had been using customer DEPOSITS to invest in the Stock Market and when it collapsed the customers were screwed. That resulted in the Glass-Steagall Act that erected a FIREWALL between banks and the greed obsessed Wall Street Casino Bosses.

Eventually the GOP managed to DEREGULATE Glass-Steagall which opened the door to UNFETTERED scams. The worst of these scams involved BYPASSING banking regulations for MORTGAGES. Normal banks were still bound to abide by mortgage requirements such as credit ratings, ability to make payments, deposit down payments, etc, etc. Since the FIREWALL was now gone there was nothing to prevent the Wall Street Casino Bosses from setting up their own "lending banks" which were NOT subject to the same mortgage regulations as normal banks.

This GAPING HOLE that now existed because of GOP DEREGULATION enabled the Wall Street Casino Banksters to set about LOOTING the EQUITY that hardworking people had accumulated via home ownership. The PREDATORY LENDERS who worked for the Wall Street Casino Banksters set about offering anyone with a pulse a balloon mortgage with ZERO down payment to purchase their own homes without any proof of income, no credit checks, nothing other than just DUPING people who didn't know any better to sign the mortgage papers. They were further duped into believing that by the time their first balloon payment came due in 5 years time their home would be worth far MORE than the balloon payment so that they could just refinance and everything would be hunky dory.

The Wall Street Casino Banksters KNEW that the VICTIMS of their PREDATORY LENDERS were NEVER going to be able to meet those balloon payments so they set up a SECOND SCAM to OFFLOAD their JUNK mortgages by BUNDLING them together with GENUINE mortgages from the normal banks. They even went so far as to sell these bundled mortgages on the stock exchange as HIGH RATED bonds knowing full well that it was all going to come crashing down. But the Wall Street Casino Banksters didn't care because they had REMOVED themselves from ALL RISK by getting rid of the PREDATORY LOANS that they made to the VICTIMS who were patently UNQUALIFIED to have normal mortgages.

The VICTIMS were left in a situation where they LOST everything and were BURDENED with OWING hundreds of thousands of dollars that they could never repay in their entire lifetimes.

The ONLY people who KNEW what was going on were the Wall Street Casino Banksters and they have all gotten away with the BIGGEST HEIST in the history of the nation. The politicians were either bribed or duped and since the GOP was BOASTING about the "success" of their DEREGULATIONS and the growth of "home ownership"" they were making out like bandits themselves.

In essence PREDATORY LENDING did exactly what the definition says it does, strip EQUITY via DECEPTION from people who have no reason to be suspicious because everything appeared to be legitimate.

That is a synopsis of my position and I have no doubt whatsoever that it TRIGGERED Cognitive Dissonance and Kneejerk Denialism in EVERYONE who supports the GOP fiscal MALFEASANCE of DEREGULATION.

 

The United States has never had unfettered capitalism it's always had a mix of capitalism and socialism. The issue with Democratic socialist countries is that they always turn to authoritarian communism. Only the ones at least some capitalism mixed in survive.

Take Denmark for example. They're held up as a symbol of, but they do have capitalism as well. no country with a purely socialist economy and government has ever survived in this world, and there has never been a purely capitalist country ever.

 

I can't think of anything much more anti-American than to expect government to support people individually. Asking government to determine winners and losers is downright dangerous. People are and should be responsible for their their own actions and inactions. If government had never gotten over its head in social spending during the 1930's, none of these things would get a mention.

 

As soon as societies build enormous armies made primarily of less gifted young men, the motion is begun toward further massive government management of masses of people who get in the habit of being managed. That is fated unless realization of the principle leads to obviating undesirable ramifications.
In modern societies, aspects of what is commonly called socialism cannot be avoided, and need not be. They need to be understood, just as the possibilities for desirable and undesirable results from "capitalism".