Why do dems continue to lose?

He won't know!

 

Coal mining (number of coal mining jobs has been dropping linearly for the past 100) years, is now largely automated, and deregulating coal companies is unlikely produce many jobs, if any.

 

You have NO IDEA what you are talking about. NO IDEA. Our "poor" are better off than average citizens in most countries.
Read Walter Williams, Thomas Sowell, and Milton Friedman.

 

Ahhh! No it wasn't. Obama got nothing done, . . . remember?

The decline and degeneration of capitalism is relentless and beyond the control of any president or Congress or, in fact, our whole political system.

The Russian workers never owned the means of production. The transition didn't happen. They went "state capitalism" instead.

 

Defaming the other guy only works so long especially when your own policies completely suck. Dems have gotten away with whining about the other guy sense Hoover people at long last are starting to figure out that bad mouthing the other guy is not very good replacement for actual substantive policies that make their lives better.

 

I think you hit some reasons ... the violence, the clown show of Shumer, Pelosi, and Warren, and an MSM that nobody believes. But above all, I think ...

They have no message, and they have no solutions to anything.

 

The decline of capitalism began to occur during the roaring twenties as progressive adopted more and more restrictive tariffs which resulted in the closing off of world trade. and the roaring twenties turned into the era of Keynesian which was in certain regards like placing the local shaman in charge of the hospital surgical center..

 

I want to commend you. I think that is fantastic of you to have a picture of your father on here. Very nice. I lost mine exactly 5 years ago this past Friday. Every Fathers Day and Mothers Day I still leave a card at their grave. You are a good person. No more "kidding" around with you. Take care.

 

Plenty of people will probably disagree with me on this, but I think that the Russian Hoax that the Clinton campaign fabricated right after the election is hurting the Democratic Party far more than the party leaders seem to realize.

And what is really bizarre about all of this is that the Democratic Party leaders are indicating that it will be something they will continuously bring up and push until the 2018 elections.

So, in effect, Hillary Clinton is continuing to drag down the Democratic Party because she wants cover at the expense of the entire party.

 

Plenty of people will probably disagree with me on this, but I think that the Russian Hoax that the Clinton campaign fabricated right after the election is hurting the Democratic Party far more than the party leaders seem to realize.

And what is really bizarre about all of this is that the Democratic Party leaders are indicating that it will be something they will continuously bring up and push until the 2018 elections.

So, in effect, Hillary Clinton is continuing to drag down the Democratic Party because she wants cover at the expense of the entire party.

 

Its a great reminder of both fake news and the failure of dems to confront reality.

Trump will use it to bludgeon them as well.

As far as wikileaks is concerned-the content of those leaks still hasn' been adequately explained by dems. They whine about the emails being released-but can't seem to explain why they said what they did.

From time to time, Trump should ask questions to the American public about them.

 

Clearly you miss the potential of liquefaction and global marketing, typical

And BTW them folk west folk I Washington rely pretty heavily on Wyoming coal powered plant

 

How is it that after 8 years of hope and change, and running Hillary that dems are reduced to this?

 

Ya think? Explain this: http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/marketindexes.html
Some decline, eh?

Oh but it worked so well. http://stockcharts.com/freecharts/historical/marketindexes.html

 

Long term, democrat policies are disastrous.

 

You need to know that you have most of that wrong. Socialism does not require nationalizing business. That is where Russia and China went wrong, -state capitalism.
If business is "nationalized", then I understand you to be meaning that the government is at that time taking over the means of production. That is state capitalism because the labor relationship of the workers is unchanged.

Your claim that Schumer is a "Marxist" is illogical, incorrect, and absurd.

How about when business sees a greater opportunity for very cheap wages offshore and moves there to take advantage of it, thus abandoning the very workers that made the business successful?

Incorrect. You have a very outdated and obsolete understanding of socialism. Here, your "socialism" fails to empower workers and establishes state capitalism.

Medical care in the U.S. takes into account the age of the patient and the life expectancy. Treatment that would resolve a patient's life-threatening condition is withheld if the patient's life expectancy is significantly less than the risk period without the treatment, .... unless the patient is a politician or wealthy enough to pay for the treatment.

OF COURSE THEY'RE CAPITALIST PRINCIPLES!!! LOL!!! The only way capitalism can provide the desired "free markets", or can survive at all actually, is if capitalism takes from the worker, oppresses the worker, exploits the worker, and dominates the worker. I just posted in U.S. and World News to demonstrate it.

Then why does the right do it so often?

You're the one blathering on about "Marxist Democrats" that don't exist.

I don't because they are a party of and for capitalism And no Marxism in them.

Then why don't you list them with evidence of them being "Marxist"? I'll show you're wrong.

I'm not a Democrat. I've made that clear on several occasions.

Fine, except if the government were to ban the injection of wastewater into the ground, it would bring fracking to a screeching halt because it is necessary as part of the process of fracking.

....according to capitalist law. I know that. I'm saying it should be changed to tax it right where it is.

....under current law. That can change.

It adopted a capitalist perspective like what you just wrote. Right wing dictators have nationalized "stuff".

The price of computers went up for a short time before technological development quickly began bringing costs down. You're so short-sighted that you can't see the obvious certainty that alternative energy prices will decline the same way for the same reasons. China "gets it" and you are content to let them eat our lunch.

Then why did their premiums go up so much as you claim?

 

NIce charts proving nothing. Other than the point I made, by 1929 tariff and counter tariff all part of the failed system of mercantilism had brought economies world wide to their knees, Hence the Term Great Depression. Unemployment stayed in double digits even with WPA and other government make work programs building some infrastructure but a lot of that was buildings that no one needed at the time. It did not fall below 10 percent until the run up to WWII. One of the chief problems of Keynesian economics is a tendency to disconnect the stock market from economic reality. American GDP increases post WWII had more to do with rebuilding Europe under the Marshall plan and the fact that we were the only game in town and even then when the economy should have been growing at least 7 percent a year it barely average 3. By the end of the fifties the economy was in the doldrums crushed under high tax burdens both personal and corporate. While Kennedy gave some economic relief in the form of tax reductions, LBJ took those away and added vastly to the bureaucratic over burden. Nixon replaced LBJ and facing a slowly decaying economy tried every trick in the Keynesian play up to and including wage and price controls but the economy only continued to stagnate while the black and gray markets gained apace. Note the chief benefactors of Keynesian economic policies are generally found in the underground economy that such policies produce in much the same manner that flies produce maggots. By the time Carter was done trying to use many of the same policies that had so spectacularly failed his predecessors we were looking at the worst economic numbers since the Great Depression. Without Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher there is every reason to believe that another spectacular world wide economic collapse was eminent and such an event would have almost certainly produced another world war even more catastrophic than the first two..

 

You need to study Marx, his co-author of the Communist Manifesto - Joseph Engels, and the Communist Manifesto.

From Engel: "“The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state."

State ownership of the means of the production precedes the collective ownership, i.e. communism. This eases the way into communism.

Study the subject a little deeper. Do you even know what the first phase of Marxism is/


[quote\Your claim that Schumer is a "Marxist" is illogical, incorrect, and absurd.[/quote]

Actions speak louder than words. When Schumer advocates class warfare, redistribution of wealth, and central planning of the economy it *is* Marxism. T

Blame the government for creating an environment inimical to business, don't blame the business!

Outdated? No, my view of Marxism is perfectly in line with Marx and Engels. There are three phases to Marxism
1. Fascism - govt *control* of business and capital
2. Socialism - govt *ownership* of business and captial
3. Communism - collective ownership of business and capital.

All laid out exactly as Marx and Engels said.

Medical care in the US takes age into consideration to determine if the patient can survive the procedure, *NOT* the life expectancy of the patient. The QALY metric is *NOT* used in the US system.

And the QALY metric is not used *exactly* because if the patient can afford the treatment they can have it. In Socialized medicine, where government budgets come into play, health care is rationed whether the patient can pay for it or not. If the QALY metric isn't met you don't get the treatment, regardless of whether you can survive the procedure or if you can pay for it! The budget money is reserved for those who *do* qualify under the QALY metric.

Far too many believers of the Marxist Democrats today think that if we go to a government run system that everyone will get all the health care they will ever want. The Marxist Democrats won't tell them that in a government run system annual budgets determine how much health care the system can provide. As the money runs out procedures get extended into the next budget year. *THAT* determines wait times for procedures in Canada and England far more often than the availability of doctors and hospital beds!

The Marxist Democrats are playing a cruel hoax on the American people by making them think the government will have unlimited funds on a continuous bases to perform whatever procedures at whatever cost!

In capitalism those with things of value exchange them for things of value. It's how capitalism works! No one "takes" from teh worker. No one oppresses the worker. No one exploits the worker. And no one dominates the worker.

If you don't like working at McDonald's then go to work for BurgerKing. You aren't being forced to work for either one. No one is oppressing you by limiting your choices. And McDondalds does not TAKE money from the customer, no force is involved at all. Something of value to the buyer is exchanged for something of value to the seller. And if the customer doesn't like what McDonalds has to offer they can go to BurgerKing or Chik-fil-A.

If you are working at Tiffiany's and don't like the job then go to work for Jared's. If you are working for BP and don't like the job then go to work for Exxon. If you are working for K-mart and don't like the job then go to Target!

You are trying to hide it but you are actually propounding the labor theory of value expressed by Marx. That the worker should be able to dictate what their labor is worth and not the employer. It doesn't work that way in capitalism. Under capitalism you get paid for your productivity and skills, not for how much effort you put in.Under capitalism the blacksmith doesn't get paid as much as a welder for putting together the same two pieces of metal in the same configuration. One has a much higher productivity and skill level - even though the blacksmith expended far more "labor".

Most on the right don't *have* to use argumentative fallacies. They can defend their principles and ideas with basic economics and reason. . It is those on the left that always resort to argumentative fallacies because most of what they believe is based on "feelings" with no rational thought of actual economics or reason behind their feelings!

Marxist Democrats do exist, just not in your bubble of willful ignorance. Those who bury their head in the sand wind up getting their butt bit off. Willful ignorance is *NOT* a survival trait.

Again, you've shown over and over that you don't even know what Marxism is so how can you know what the Democrat party stands for?

"The system is not working when we have a rigged economy in which ordinary Americans work longer hours for lower wages, while most new income and wealth goes to the top one percent. " CLASS WARFARE

" We believe that Americans should earn at least $15 " CENTRAL PLANNING OF THE ECONOMY (price and wage controls)

"Democrats believe so-called “right to work” laws are wrong for workers" CENTRAL PLANNING OF THE ECONOMY

"we will incentivize companies to share profits with their employees on top of wages and pay increases, while targeting the workers and businesses that need profit-sharing the most." REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

"We must make sure that everyone has a fair shot at homeownership. " REDISTRIBUTION OF WEALTH

I didn't even get through the first five pages! Do you want more!


[quote[I'm not a Democrat. I've made that clear on several occasions.[/quote]

It doesn't matter what you *say* you are. What matters are the polices you push. And you are pushing Marxist Democrat policies. You can run but you can't hide!

I am sure there are *safe* ways of disposing of the wastewater. The proof of that is that there *are* fracking fields where earthquakes are not happening and water is not being polluted!

If it has already been taxed or is not subject to tax then exactly what changes do you want to make? Do you just want to tax it *more* because it is off-shore?

So you think you and the Marxist Democrats *DO* have the Divine Right to extract money from dirt farmers in Thailand even though you provide exactly *NO* services to that dirt farmer?

This is the kind of attitude that ensures I will fight against the Marxist Democrats tooth and nail to see that we don't turn into a Venezuela!

[/quote]It adopted a capitalist perspective like what you just wrote. Right wing dictators have nationalized "stuff".[/quote]

Really? *WHAT* right-wing dictators have nationalized the means of production? They may have *stolen* the money earned by companies but they simply don't nationalize them!

The Marxist Democrats have been saying this for eight years. It hasn't happened yet. When is it going to? Is it *always* going to just out of reach? China is still building coal plants. Exactly what do they get?

[quote[Then why did their premiums go up so much as you claim?[/quote]

Subsidies to individuals are not the same thing as premium costs. I simply despair that you understand economics at all.

Letting people keep more of their own money is not redistribution of wealth unless you are a Marxist Democrat that believes all money belongs to the collective instead of the individual.

You simply can't get away from your Marxist worldview no matter how much you claim you aren't a Marxist.

 

So 2-5% a tax raise on the wealthy is peanuts, a drop in the bucket, not enough to be meaningful; but also class warfare; a threat to capitalism as we know it and would turn is into Venezuala.

17% of our GDP spent on healthcare. Australia, Canada, France and Germany spend between 10-12% of their GDP on healthcare and have universal coverage, stellar outcomes. If we went single payer, every American (and American company), would no longer be responsible for paying premiums. Instead of paying that money to an insurance company, it's taxed out of your income - and because single payer is most cost effective, as we see form % of our GDP that we spend as opposed to what others spend, in all likelihood it would be a net gain for the average American. Instead of paying your insurance company; you'd be paying out of your taxes; and it would likely be less - so while your taxes might go up; you're net take-home would likely increase.

The money is collected and distributed by different people; i.e. your healthcare spending goes into taxes instead of premiums; people wouldn't be paying BOTH.

Infrastructure is state, local and federal. The truly large projects; like the Highway system; need federal tax dollars... we have to redistribute some money from NY and California to pay for i70 to be built/maintained across Kansas; because Kansas can't foot that bill themselves. The wealthy states have to help maintain the not-wealthy states; because it's in their best interest to ensure that eighteen-wheelers can safely deliver products throughout the country.

I'm saying we can do that with renewable energy too. NY can afford to have their own green initiatives; but perhaps Mississippi can't. So some NY money will be redistributed, via the federal government, to Mississippi to help cultivate solar, wind or hydroelectricity - because it's in NY's interest in the long term for every state in the union to pollute less.

The cost of living has gone up. How much was college when you went? How much is it now? How competitive was the job market when you graduated for people with BA's; how competitive is it now? How competitive is it for post-graduate degrees? How many post grad degree folks were there when you graduated college, and how much did it cost?

How about healthcare costs; then and now? How about childcare costs - daycare has exploded? How many people in a family, household needed to work full-time when you graduated, compared to now?

Now look at the gains in wages in that same time frame. Where have all the gains gone?



http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-astonishing-trend-in-incom/

I'm not saying it can't be done. I'm not saying your boys are anything but good kids and you obviously did a good job as a parent. I'm not discounting, discouraging or looking to make irrelevant the values of discipline, work ethic and integrity that you (and I) value and that you instilled in your children.

I'm saying wealth inequality; both in wages earned and in overall net wealth, has exploded and we no longer have the same degree of social mobility and therefore meritocracy that we used to have. I'm saying socialized medicine hasn't made Germany or Australia into communists; in fact they're both pretty damn effective market economies. I'm saying a 5% tax hike on the top 1% wouldn't be a reactionary, 'nationalizing of wealth for the glory of the dear leader' but rather a return to tax policies we've implemented before. I'm saying throwing around the term 'class warfare', invoking Venezuela, every time you hear about a proposed tax hike on the wealthy or single-payer system is a misleading scare tactic that upon close examination, doesn't make a lick of sense.

 

So that makes it okay exactly how? Not an argument. We should compare relative to our own group, else it's our country that matters. Our "group" being the west, which then what you said does not stand.

 

The reason is two fold. First, Americans are by and large stupid and ill informed. The majority of us are too busy trying to make a living to pay much attention to politics. Secondly, the left cannot compete with the right wing media machine and their ceaseless propaganda. That is how we end up losing, a combination of truly stupid people and propaganda. We are in the first stages of Idiocracy.

 

The *amount* of money such a tax would get from the rich is peanuts! FICA taxes don't touch the rich heavily, it simply won't generate enough tax revenue to be significant when it comes to Medicare for all!

Again, since FICA doesn't touch capital it won't hurt capital. But thinking you can "soak the rich" to pay for an entitlement for the poor *is* class warfare.

What will turn us into Venezuela is having to install a FICA tax of 30% on the poor!

But each and every one of these countries use the QALY metric to ration care. Each and every one. Having universal coverage doesn't mean universal care for everything. The excellent outcomes are generated by sending people home with a pain pill to die so they aren't counted in the health care statistics. Remember Obama and giving grandma a red pill instead of a pacemaker? In these other countries grandma doesn't get counted against healthcare outcomes. Here, when grandma dies with a pacemaker, it *is* counted as a health care outcome! Even infant mortality is counted differently in the US. And cancer survival? Thank you but I want my wife's breast cancer treated here in the US where survival rates are higher than overseas!

17% of our GDP is over $3T per year. WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM? Are you going to tax the poor even more?

What income? There is no guarantee that all of that will flow to the employees. It could go to growing the business with more capital investment. It could be used to lower prices. It could be used to pay more dividends.

Are you going to mandate that all businesses pay employees a certain amount? More wage controls from the federal government than we have today?

And what happens to the employees in small businesses that don't provide health care plans today? Are those employees not going to be covered by the single payer plan?

It's *NOT* the most cost effective. If that were the case we wouldn't have seen college tuition boom to 5 times what it was in 1970 since the government took over paying for college! Where's the cost effectiveness?

The most likely scenario is that the single payer, i.e the government, is going to control what it covers - just like it does with Medicare and the VA. If you want a procedure then you will have to go to the private market and pay out of pocket. The NHS in England found this out when they opened NHS hospitals to private customers. Private customers took up so many beds that there was no room left for NHS patients. NHS had to start rationing private patients! There was a HUGE health care market there that the NHS just wasn't handling. It still isn't. France is the same. Most people there carry private insurance as well as being part of the government system - so they can go out of network when the government care just doesn't cut it!

Yes, they *will* be paying both. Just like in England and France. It's what happens when you have a nationalized system that rations care - which is what all nationalized systems do! Just ask a veteran trying to get into the VA!

99% of our infrastructure is state and local. And Kansas actually does pay for I-70 between Kansas City and Topeka with tolls. Same for Topeka - Wichita. The interstate highways are a *small* part of our total highway system. Just how many jobs are you going to create by increasing maintenance on the interstates?

Do you understand that there are no federally or state owned alternative energy plants, or at least very few? They are privately owned, just like coal-fired and natural-gas owned power plants.

Actually inflation has been *extremely* low over the past decade. Why do you think the FED has been able to hold interest rates at zero for so long?

College costs have gone up five-fold. But not due to inflation. Most of the increase has occurred since Obama and the government took over college loans. That's just like handing the colleges free money. And they keep taking more and more. Did Obama and the Marxist Democrats ever say ENOUGH! Nope. They just kept handing out more and more money and saddling college students with more debt.

The job market when I graduated wasn't the best. Employers were not interested in young men that were subject to the draft. And BA degrees? They have *never* been in big demand other than a few niche sectors, librarians, journalism, etc. Post-graduate degrees have always been in demand, especially in the STEM fields.

When I was growing up my parents had a catastrophic insurance plan. Everything else, doctor's visits, drugs, etc were paid for out of pocket. And the costs weren't all that high. We were not rich but we could afford a doctor visit when someone needed stitches! Daycare? We had one woman in my town of 600. She made a pretty good living watching the kids. But she only watched the little kids. After about 9 years old we stayed home on our own. Both of my parents worked from the time they left home. Mechanic and nurse. I started in the hayfields at 13 to earn money for college. I bucked hay bales, castrated hogs, butchered cows, plowed/disced/cultivated on a tractor, I worked one week on a dairy farm why the farmer went on vacation - NEVER AGAIN.

What are you trying to get at? Times have been hard forever. If you want to know about women in the workforce bls.gov has all the data!



Now look at the gains in wages in that same time frame. Where have all the gains gone?

[

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/the-astonishing-trend-in-incom/[/quote]

Why do you worry so much about the rich? It looks like wages went up for all of the quintiles! Even after 2004.

Are you jealous? How much did the wages go up for Chinese workers that benefitted from teh Marxist Democrats driving jobs overseas?

Here is what the bls.gov shows for weekly earnings from 2006. Looks like a pretty steady gain to me!

Get over your jealousy. Worry about *you* instead of what Trump makes!

1. Most of the inequality has happened because the Marxist Democrat drove so many jobs overseas. The extremely low labor force participation rate under Obama means there was (and still is) a HUGE pool of unemployed labor available in the US. When supply of a commodity grows the price goes down. You can whine about the laws of economics all you want but they have *not* been repealed.

2. Much of our problem is not social mobility, it is just plain MOBILITY. We no longer have have the migratory gene which drove people to go where the jobs are. Jobs in the oil fields go unfilled, esp in the Dakota's. Why? Why aren't young men in the ghetto's of NYC flocking to ND to fill those jobs? The Okies of the 30's would have!

3. As I keep pointing out to you, a 5% income tax on the top 1% will get you almost nothing. Most of their income is *not* earned income. You are going to have to come up with some other idea. This one won't work. It's why it is *always* a lie from the Marxist Democrats when they say they can soak the rich!

4. When you speak about "soaking the rich" you are clearly advocating class warfare. You can deny it all you want. It won't change the truth.

5. The problem with single-payer, as I keep pointing out, is WE CAN'T AFFORD IT!

 

You keep asking where the money is going to come from to pay for 17% of our GDP on healthcare; but that's what we already pay - we're not "adding that on top". Who we pay it to; private insurance or in a single payer, is the difference - that money that comes out of your check each pay period; if you have employer based insurance, will go to the government to fund single payer as opposed to presently where it goes to an insurance company.

And since every other western, modernized, market economy democracy in the West pays less, as a percentage of their GDP, then us we would likely save money; net to the average American. If in ten years after implementing a single payer we collectively spent closer to 11% than to 17% of our GDP on healthcare; as many of our NATO allies do; we will have saved money.

Do we have better cancer rates?

https://www.cdc.gov/cancer/dcpc/research/articles/concord-2.htm

Look at Canada, we have 2%-3% more survivability compared with them... is that worth spending 6% (a trillion dollars a year) more of our GDP to achieve; also at the cost of having massive amounts of uninsured?

For me; it's not.

There will still be a market for supplemental insurance. No doubt about it. Not everything will be covered; nor do I advocate for such. But everyone will have base-line medical coverage and it won't be tied to your employment. To the degree with which that baseline provides coverage is complex and is the conversation we should be having; instead you're focusing on how socialized medicine in general, even though works the world ever, could never work in practice.

Inflation is low; cost of living since you graduated has gone up. And the trend of increasing costs of college are not an Obama phenomenon, since the mid nineties costs have been rising quickly. And I don't know what the answer is to that problem; but we can both admit that the cost today is far different from when your generation went to college. One can't simply hold a full-time summer job and a part-time academic year job to pay for college as a student.

To better yourself through college education costs more now than it ever has, and has become more necessary in the workforce than it ever was before. You're not admitting that it's more difficult now, for the middle class, than it was when you grew up.

Do you understand that we don't have to nationalize an industry to provide it incentive; state or federal? Do I want to build state-owned solar fields? No. I want to incentivize business through government grants, tax breaks and other financial incentive.

It's like every single argument you make; starts off by you purporting to me an extreme position which you then argue against.

1. "Lets blame Democrats for globalization (are you advocating for protectionism?) and speak about the lower labor force rate during the Obama years without mentioning the 2007 financial crises, the largest since the Great Depression"

2. Agree there; people should take more risk and move to where the jobs are.

3 & 4. If 5% is nothing how am I 'soaking' the rich? Which is it? Is 5% going to end competitiveness, ambition and capitalism as we know it or is it a meaningless sum of money?

5. We're the richest nation the world has ever seen; our NATO allies who are rich (but not as rich as us) all seemed to have figured out how to do it; but we can't?

 

Worth checking out as well;