If Democratic Socialism Works, Why Doesn’t Venezuela Have Toilet Paper?

Sweden has very little socialism.

 

Your modus operandi over the last number of posts is to accuse me of doing things I did not do - and the above post is no different.

What Gov't actions have I defended without question ? .. What Gov't actions have I defended period ?

You come up with this cockamamie definition of Fiscal conservative - of which you have never give a formal definition - all you offered was anyone who believes in Gov't Social Spending - is not a Fiscal Conservative.

I ask about roads - infrastructure - Police - things required for civil society to exist.

You retort "by Gov't I mean Federal". So your definition - or what little you give of it - has now changed to "Federal Gov't Spending"

1) why would it make a difference to a Fiscal Conservative - whether the spending is from Federal, State, or Municipal ? Gov't taking from my pocket is Gov't taking from my pocket.

Are you suggesting that it is OK for city council to pick my pocket but not ok for the Feds ? This is not a States Rights discussion - this is a discussion of what is a fiscal conservative. So it is you who is defending Gov't - yet accusing me of doing this - "Projection".

So far - you are not giving me a coherent explanation of your FC definition. Gov't is Gov't -what difference does it make ?

2) Is Fed Money not involved in Roads and Infrastructure ? You are claiming then that you are against this ?! (chess notation for questionable move)

Sounds to me like you have been fed some propaganda narrative - but you have no good defense of your position - and so you have started to engage in thought avoidance of a sort. "Demonization of the other" - followed by running from the playground to stick head deep in the sandbox of denial.

That was somewhat unexpected.

 

Do you have any idea what the taxes in those "wonderful" european socialist countries are???

 

I will answer that for you because it is a reasonable question. State and local governments have competition in a way. If you don't like the way things are run, you can live in another state or municipality. I know several companies that left California because of the tax rates and moved to places like Idaho and Arizona. They had a choice and made one. At the federal level there is no competition and no accountability.

You and I are closer to our state and local governments than we are to federal government. We know that decision making is normally better the closer it is to whatever is requiring the decision. The founders designed the federal government to handle those things that the states could either not do or not do efficiently.

We know what those are because the first government had departments for them - War, State, Justice and Treasury. The department of War was charged with defending the country from external powers, State was charged with dealing and treating with other countries, Justice was charged with resolving interstate disputes and Treasury was charged with maintaining a currency and a few other things. In the meantime government has grown to the monstrosity it is today. As a monster it has become increasingly incompetent and corrupt. There is incompetence and corruption in state and local government as well but there is also the competition discussed above as well as better responsiveness to citizens.

I support moving everything (except those four elements above as well as the department of Homeland Security) to the states, the private sector or the trash can. That would move approximately 90% of federal government spending out of federal government. The states could then establish other functions that used to be in federal government or not as they see fit. We would pay less federal tax and more state tax. So, as you say, it wouldn't matter who is picking your pocket. But the picker would now be closer to you and would be affected by what other states did. We began as a union of states. We have become a centralized government with 50 provinces. I would like to return to a union of states. I think the founders had it right.

 

Can't say I am against anything you have said - we need to do something to decrease the size of Gov't. The problem with the plan you put forward is that this is not the reality in which we live - and a good fiscal conservative is mindful of this.

A good FC is also mindful of what any branch of Gov't is spending - and it is not like you have a whole lot more say over state spending than Federal. You may live in a State that happens to agree with your political perspective - you may not. Either way - a dollar from my pocket is a dollar from my pocket

If I could flick my wrist and make a different system appear - that would be nice - but, the fact of the matter is that the position on the board is the position on the board .. and one must make moves accordingly - not on the basis of what one wishes the position to be. Sure one can try and work towards that position - but that is different from what the position on the board is.

Take Healthcare - you are not going to flick a switch and tomorrow it is all on the States - and one thing you got right was that it is an ugly monster - to the tune of 3.5 Trillion in 2017.

I don't like big Gov't - if I can take 3.5 Trillion - half of which is Gov't - and cut that spend in half - I have cut the Gov't in half - and decreased the cost for the individual by half.

We can flick a switch and do this tomorrow by adopting socialized medicine like one of the better systems in Europe - straight across the board - for half the money. This is how a fiscal conservative thinks. This is not going to happen - it is more radical than even what Bernie is suggesting.

 

My opinions are all about the reality in which we live. I would like to see that reality change.

The idea is to take fewer dollars from your pocket. The states will behave better than federal government. Balanced budgets for one thing. Getting rid of programs not in the best interests of your state is another.

I don't have any political power at all. There is nothing I can do to reform government. All I can do is communicae what I think so I do that.

Why should government have anything to do with health care at all?

Half would be a good start.

As a fiscal conservative you are pretty liberal. Government provided health care will cost many times what we pay in the private sector. Heck Obamacare is one small example of that. Imagine what happens after the special interests get involved in it. Nothing done by federal government saves money. Not a single thing. The government provided health care in other countries work to a degree because they are much smaller countries with more competent governments.

 

All good until the part in Bold. You say "Half would be a good start" Great - what part of socialized medicine in other first world nations costs half - are you missing in your equation ?

One thing is for sure - one of us is presenting incorrect information - as both claims can not be true.

I was not talking about some Obamacare - lipstick on a pig program. Which is what it was - Total costs continued to rise - the systemic issues not addressed.

get on the right page por favor - I said - were we to swap - straight across the board -which we could do - with one of the better EU systems. Costs would be half .. in fact - we should be able to do better due to economies of scale.

I see 1.75 Trillion on the table .. you see "RED" ?

This is not only a Liberal Issue - this is everybody's issue.
The Conservative Case For Universal Healthcare
https://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/the-conservative-case-for-universal-healthcare/

Where is the Trump Plan to get the costs down ? Where are the fiscal conservatives ... in friggen la la land .. that's where .. in such a Red Tizzy that basic math escapes them ? I think not - obviously there is something else going on here - and it is not rocket science to figure out.

Would you like to hazard a guess as to why we are paying 3.5 Trillion for a 1.75 T product - prior to me continuing my rant ?

 

If Democratic Socialism Works, Why Doesn’t Venezuela Have Toilet Paper?
If American capitalism works, why do 50% of all American families have less than $400. in available funds for emergencies at any given time?

 

I understand the left's passion for universal healthcare. But neither you nor an internet article will convince me that the government can do it less expensively than the private sector. I base that on more than a 1/2 century of watching the government. Cheaper health care is a good sales tactic but it is a lie.

 

Because they live beyond their means. And they live a whole lot better than Venezuelans do.

 

I don't give a rat's backside about what the passions of the left are.

It is not some hidden secret that the healthcare costs EU nations are half that of what we pay.

What part of " We pay double what other first world nations pay" do you not understand ? - or rather - are pretending to not understand.

This is not about Gov't doing something less expensively than the private sector. This is about our current system - which is a mixture of both - costing double.

 

Actually it is partially hidden which is what happens with government cost accounting.

 

Apples and oranges. The EU nations are smaller with smaller governments. Our government is a deep cesspool. You will not convince me that it can do a better or cheaper job than the private sector. It never happens.

 

No it isn't - - false narrative been fed to you.

 

You have failed to make your case for "apples and oranges" this was then coupled with an unqualified claim of "smaller Gov't" - is this on a per person basis ? Europe is not actually known for "small govt" you have clarification work to do.

No argument with the deep cesspool.

So after failing to make a coherent argument - rattle off ..

"You will not convince me that it can do a better or cheaper job than the private sector. It never happens."

1) I was not trying to convince you that Gov't can do it cheaper than the private sector - find the right page before opening mouth in class - and stop trying to mischaracterize my argument.

The question at hand is whether the EU system is cheaper than our system (which is not just Private)

2) your claim is a patent falsehood. Of course it happens - you can get drugs in any of these other nations - same drug often from same company - for a fraction of the cost paid here.

Further - the "Socialized medicine" systems of the EU provide Equivalent Healthcare for half the cost of our - "Private" system - which of course is not just private but a fusion of public and private - what I refer to as the Oligopoly Bureaucracy Fusion Monster.

You do well at understanding the Bureaucracy part of the monster - but fail in showing any understanding of the other massive head of the monster.

 

Last post. I'm sick and tired of repeating myself.
You weren't trying to convince me that the government can do it more cheaply? Go reread your nonsense about Europe doing it for half the price. The EU is not the U.S. Because you think they do it cheaper has no bearing on the U.S. The drugs are cheaper abroad because of the drug companies. They apply their development costs only to U.S. sales and view foreign sale as added business. I has nothing to do with the cost of healthcare here or there. It is the way the drug companies operate. Don't like it? Don't buy their stock. I have no idea what the massive head of the monster is. Goodbye.

 

A lot less than you’ll claim... and they get a lot more for it than you’ll admit

but wait... when it’s pointed out that they are successful prosperous countries... all of a sudden they aren’t socialist anymore

 

There aren't any socialist economic systems in Europe. Every country has a capitalist economy. Not all of a sudden. It has been this way since the end of the monarchies. Well, Russia was socialist for quite a while but they have turned to capitalism recently.

 

Now you move the goalpost - in a pathetic attempt to maintain your blind delusion. More cheaply than what ? You cant even make complete sentences ...

I claimed simply that socialized medicine in Europe is cheaper than our system. That is a fact .. You then railed about private being cheaper.
How do you know that Private is cheaper ? 2) it makes no difference to my claim because ours is not a private system .. it is a private system mixed in with a Gov't system.

What mythical Private system are you referring to .. I am talking reality here .. not fantasy land

Even so .. I entertained your fantasyland narrative - and proved that even it was false.

 

I don't mind paying taxes when they go to quality of life, like healthcare and education and roads and fire stations and good bridges, I don't mind at all.

When the tax dollars are stolen by war profiteers, I'm pissed.

 

If capitalism works...why can't we get toilet paper?

 

If a national healthcare system doesn't have to cope with making a profit as private insurance companies do, and they can provide healthcare at cost, then it would certainly be cheaper.

 

If by simply providing the funds necessary to cover living expenses alone, leaves half of all American families with no savings, no investments, & no money to use for anything extra, then perhaps something's amiss with the economic system they live under?

 

Hyperbole