Why do dems continue to lose?

Yet you seem a bit delirious to be he fact Trump being voted in isn't a good thing. The other day, he was bragging the first coal plant reopened in PA in decades. There's a reason no coal plant has opened in decades.

Because coal is dead.

 

That's the first time I've ever heard coal was alive. I'm pretty sure coal is the metamorphosed remains of dead creatures and plants from our past.

Either way, you should look at China and India's coal usage and being allowed to build more coal-fired plants. We could certainly make some money selling them coal even we don't create more coal-fired plants.

Steve

 

If Trump being voted in means Democrats lose elections, then its a good thing.

 

No, it's "dictatorship of the proletariat", IOW workers owning and operating the means of production. And class warfare was invented and continues under capitalism. Wealth has been redistributed from workers to greedy corporate elite who stashed their profits offshore.

That's because you have an anti-Marxist view of it.

Most don't, including Republicans.

No punishment. Just proper management of greed to keep a level playing field instead of huge advantage to the biggest and richest.

Wrong, 58-37% - http://www.gallup.com/poll/191504/majority-support-idea-fed-funded-healthcare-system.aspx

Bunk. It isn't a problem for any country with national healthcare.

Some legislation is about other things, like justice.

Those are capitalist principles too.

Right, a slanted, right wing "study".

They aren't! They need to be though and that's what I'm telling you.

Riiiiight. That's followed real well.

Aside from there being virtually no "Marxist Democrats" except in some people's imagination, fracking has destroyed water supplies and caused earthquakes.

What the hell are you talking about? That has nothing to do with offshore accounts in the Cayman Islands and elsewhere.

No, I meant nationalize banking.

You reject a 3% benefit for them? LOL!!!
Economic growth and job growth will be best addressed as it was historically, -by taxing at pre-Reagan levels and using the revenue to fund infrastructure and energy projects. It will create millions of jobs that generate tax revenue.

Wind power at the utility scale is already cheaper than coal, nuclear, and most everything but hydro. Solar is right at its heals. Electric power in New England commonly runs 19¢ per kWh. So even 16¢ would be a price cut.

Sez you. First, Obama did none of these things. And secondly, these things are very popular. You seem to be unaware of popular issues.

It is a highly biased person who declares we have "Marxism". There is none. I am suggesting it begin but not in this post. These are not principles and policies limited to Marxist interests. They are common to liberals, independents, and even some libertarians and others who are entirely dedicated to preserving capitalism. If a person advocates a continuation of capitalism, they are not a Marxist.

And when government allows income disparity and wealth accumulation as we have, that government is redistributing wealth. When we have cuts to SNAP and healthcare to balance tax cuts for the rich, the government is redistributing wealth. And Republicans are known for advocating all of these. So again, class warfare began with the capitalist government, and the strongest advocate for capitalism is the Republican Party.

 

______
If you consider that the DNC spent a billion dollars on the Presidential election that ended in November 2016 a lost miserably. They are so butt hurt that they fail to realize that they've lost over 1,000 state legislature seats and a majority of governorships along with the presidency. Americans on a whole have rejected the Progressive Democrat ideology and promises and have scored the lies from the left. Failure has been their option not success and their comeback may be many years off.

 

_____
First, Dictatorship of the Proletariat.: Is defined as "the assumption of political power by the proletariat (working class people) with concomitant repression of previously controlling or governing classes that in Marxist philosophy".

This is exactly the definition of "Obama's Fundamental Transformation" of America which has failed horribly as seen in the 2016 election of Donald Trump. The shift and disparity of wealth in America was the result of Obama's administration of gov't for 8 years.
Just as Russian attempts of "workers" owning and operating the means of production have proved a dismal failure as shown by the mass starvation of the "proletariat" time and time again as exemplified in the latest attempts to do so in Venezuela.

 

When people reach retirement age most tend to reevaluate their lives, and if they haven't reached the high goals they sought to achieve as a 20-year old full of irrational exuberance, they tend to find ways to blame others or the system as the reason they never quite reached their goals. For those people, it's time to grow up. We don't all get what we wished for years ago. Look to your inner-self and you'll likely find the real reason, if you're honest.

Don't seek to bring us all down and make us all equally miserable.

Steve

 

That's my dad. He died this last February at the age of 88. I would rather honor him with a picture everyone sees than put my ugly mug up there.

 

The dictatorship of the proletariat? That is the phase of Marxism known as Socialism. It is when the government is in the process of nationalizing all business and capital. It is the phase right before Communism which is when the collective takes ownership of businesses and capital. In this phase the GOVERNMENT owns the means of production, not the collective!

No, that's because the three precepts are laid out right there in the Communist Manifesto!

When you are driving business off-shore then you are *punishing* them. It truly is that simple!

Your poll isn't about socialized healthcare. It's about a single-payer insurance system. Socialized medicine includes the government taking over hospitals and doctors being government employees.

You didn't even bother to go look up the term QALY and how it is used in socialized medicine like in England. I knew you wouldn't. You would rather remain in your alternate reality created from willful ignorance. It happens *all* the time in socialized medicine.

From wikipedia:
QALY - "The quality-adjusted life year or quality-adjusted life-year (QALY) is a generic measure of disease burden, including both the quality and the quantity of life lived.[1][2] It is used in economic evaluation to assess the value for money of medical interventions.[1]One QALY equates to one year in perfect health.[2] If an individual's health is below this maximum, QALYs are accrued at a rate of less than 1 per year. To be dead is associated with 0 QALYs.[3] QALYs can be used to personal decisions, to evaluate programs, and to set priorities for future programs.[3]"

If your QALY assessment falls below a certain limit you don't get a procedure - i.e. granny getting a pacemaker.

This is just one more inconvenient truth the Marxist Democrats don't want to hear. It makes them uncomfortable in their bubble of willful ignorance.

I thought you were whining about the economic status of the middle class. I guess you were just whining in general, eh?

Class warfare and redistribution of wealth are *not* capitalist principles. They are 180deg out of phase with capitalism!

This is the argumentative fallacy known as Argument by Dismissal. You can't refute anything in the study so you just dismiss it out of hand. It's a typical ploy by a Marxist Democrat.

You don't even know what Marxism *is*. You've proven that with this post!

You said we need a law. I pointed out we already have a law. Another law won't help. Like all Marxist Democrats, you love growing government intrusion into our lives with more and more laws and regulation.

If you support the Democrat Party Platform then you are a Marxist. Marxist principles are so deeply intertwined in the Platform they will never be removed beyond a total rewrite.

Like most Marxist Democrats you have swallowed the Kook-Aid all the way down. It isn't the fracking that has been tied to earthqukes (except in the lamestreammedia). It is disposal of the wastewater produced during the fracking. It's the same for water pollution, it isn't the fracking that is the problem, it is the disposal of wastewater. Both the federal government and the industry are working to find solutions to the disposal of wastewater. They don't need the Marxist Democrats issuing new regulations banning fracking!

Where do you think the money in those accounts come from? Based on regulations established under Clinton and Bush you cannot transfer money out of the US without the IRS being notified and any applicable taxes paid on the money. Any domestic US money in those accounts have been TAXED! Money earned from foreign subsidiaries can be kept in those accounts since no tax is owed on that money as long as it is not brought into the US.

I am *always* amazed at how little Marxist Democrats actually know about financial systems. It's the reason they whine so much.

You are the one that said you want to tax off-shore accounts. That *must* mean you want to tax the foreign earnings that are kept in those accounts. You and the Marxist Democrats have no Divine Right to any part of that foreign money. You may think you do but you don't. Neither you or the Marxist Democrats provide any government services to the dirt farmer in Thailand!

ROFL! And you say the Democrats are not Marxists? Nationalizing *anything* is Socialism, the 2nd phase of Marxism. What in hell has happened to civics education in this nation over the past 50 years!

3% is peanuts. My guess is that you don't even have a clue as to what percentage of total federal income business taxes actually represent. I'm pretty sure it is *far* less than you think

No one paid at pre-Reagan tax levels. This was the period of tax shelters galore. It is when numbered Swiss bank accounts became so popular for hiding income from the IRS. I was alive and working at that time!

The price of energy is going UP as alternative energy is installed. Didn't you read what I gave you on California? Did you think that was a joke? Residential electric prices in 2014 was 17c per KWh. What has happened? More alternative energy?

Obama raised taxes BIG TIME on the rich to pay for Obamacare. Where were you in 2010? And guess where that money went? It was redistributed to the people buying Obamacare policies.

Everything you have to offer is based on Marxist principles. The fact that you do not know what Marxist principles are doesn't mean what you offer is not Marxism.

Capitalists are *NOT* for nationalizing the banking system. Capitalists are not for punishing business with high taxes. Capitalists are not for redistribution of wealth. Capitalists are not for higher taxes and bigger government and more regulation. Capitalists are not for stealing money from dirt farmers in Thailand in order to fund a government utopia here.

Government didn't just allow the income disparity THEY CAUSED IT! By stifling economic growth there was nothing the poor, the working poor, and the middle class could do!

You are using the typical Marxist Democrat ploy. Slowing the growth of a program is CUTTING IT! SNAP is still being funded. Medicaid is still be funded. Just not at the typical 8% growth rate of government programs!

Tax cuts do *NOT* redistribute wealth. This is another symptom of someone being a Marxist Democrat. That money does *NOT* belong to the government! It belongs to the individual! Letting an individual keep more of his own money is *NOT* redistributing money.

 

Sure it means that. That's what Marxism is all about. Class warfare and redistribution of wealth.

What do you think the meme: "From each according to ability and to each according to need" actually means?

That's a COMMUNIST meme.

You are also confusing "effective" tax rate with designated tax rate. Why do you think numbered Swiss bank accounts were so popular when those tax rates were so high? Are you even old enough to remember those?

The ignorance of American economic history is on the left, not on the Republican side.

Do you even understand that the reason the US did so well in the 50's, 60's, and 70's was because we were the only major economic power left in the world after WWII? It wasn't until Germany and Japan re-tooled using *our* money and began producing in the 70's that we saw any real competition. And all we've seen from the Marxist Democrats since Carter was president was a hue and cry for higher taxes and more welfare entitlements!

A full 27% of the US households today have someone on Medicaid. 49% of households get some kind of government benefits. How in blue blazes did this happen. It represents a HUGE amount of wealth redistribution!

 

Even Japan is now building new coal plants along with China. HUGE export markets for our coal!

Who says coal is dead?

 

Oh no argument there! Only he wasn't one of the worker LOLOL! In fact the only thing they could find "Work Wise" was a very quick blurb/mention about working as a carpenter The rest of his bio is

Activist
Sit ins
Rally's
Protest
Conscientious objector status during the Vietnam War
During his student years he also read a variety of American and European political authors
He has described himself as a mediocre college student because the classroom was "boring and irrelevant," while the community provided his most significant learning

This mommas boy would be lucky if he could handle a McDonalds job, thank God for tax payers

 

It died because Oberry regulated them in to the grave! Now he is a sad memory and soon all his moronic policies will also be a distant memory too

 

Yea, I'm aware of that maxim. And I don't subscribe to it. I'm not looking for class warfare. Somehow any question or proposal relative to the growing wealth disparity, a trend that has not seen this much wealth concentration since the 1920's, is class warfare. I call BS on that. I want to be rich too. I don't want things to be completely equal. The harder you work and the smarter/more talented you are; I want you to achieve more and earn more. I'm merely stating that there is a balance I'm looking to strike; a balance we've had in this country before - where CEO's make 10 - 25% of the average employee in their company; not 300%.

http://www.epi.org/publication/top-...market-gains-and-the-rest-of-the-0-1-percent/

I don't think that's unreasonable to strive for; it's certainly not un-American (since we've done it during our golden age; the postwar boom) and it's certainly not communist.

The effective tax rate was still higher on the top 1% for the first three decades of postwar America; the days when we built infrastructure; pursued the Marshall Plan, landed on the Moon and passed the GI bill that gave us a generation of highly skilled workers. And it's funny you bring up Germany and Japan; both of our 'competitors' have higher tax rates rates than us.

Medicaid for all; and yes that same percentage who receives government benefits sounds a lot like the same percentage that doesn't pay income tax; because they don't have enough money!

What is your solution for the growing concentration of wealth in this country? Or is it not a problem that we look more like a third world country when it comes to wealth distribution than a first world country? Why have the supply-side economics since Reagan seen the gains go to the top 10% where everyone else's wages have stayed stagnant?

 

That doesn't make it any less of a Marxist meme.

If you want to tax the rich more because they are rich then you *are* looking for class warfare.

It *is* class warfare. You can't make the poor prosperous by tearing down the rich. When you point to the rich as the *cause* of the disparity and say they need to pay, it *is* class warfare[/quote]


[quote[ I call BS on that. I want to be rich too. I don't want things to be completely equal. The harder you work and the smarter/more talented you are; I want you to achieve more and earn more. I'm merely stating that there is a balance I'm looking to strike; a balance we've had in this country before - where CEO's make 10 - 25% of the average employee in their company; not 300%. [/quote]

The way to do that is to raise the poor up, not to tear the rich down. When you make the rich into the problem then you *are* indulging in class warfare. And in the process actually missing the true reasons for the disparity!

It isn't thinking that the disparity needs to be addressed that becomes Marxist. It's the solutions that are suggested, i.e tearing down the rich, that makes it into Marxist class warfare.

No, the EFFECTIVE tax rate was not much higher than it is today. Well, maybe a little but not much. The law specified a higher level but no one paid it. I worked for one of those rich people when I was in high school. I *know* where he kept his money and what he paid taxes on.

With every single working person in the country paying FICA taxes we can't fund SS and Medicare for just the elderly. How in Pete's name are we going to pay for Medicare for all? WHERE IS THE MONEY GOING TO COME FROM?

[quote[What is your solution for the growing concentration of wealth in this country? Or is it not a problem that we look more like a third world country when it comes to wealth distribution than a first world country? Why have the supply-side economics since Reagan seen the gains go to the top 10% where everyone else's wages have stayed stagnant?[/QUOTE]

ECONOMIC GROWTH. 4% ECONOMIC GROWTH. Or even higher. 6% economic growth like we saw under Reagan!

Supply-side economics has worked very well! It just so happens that because of our tax and regulatory policies it has worked for the Chinese and the South Koreans and the Vietnamese!

If the poor are so poor where do you think the rich are getting their money?

 

You made my point. Republicans believe what they want to regardless of facts

 

Fact:
If Democrats don't stop burning, looting, and shooting people at baseball practice, they may never win another election.

 

Good thing right wingers didn't shoot a church full of people or Gabby Giffords huh?

 

We have so many more energy sectors than coal. Coal was relevant at the turn of the 20th century. It wasn't relevant at the turn of the 21st century, it sure isn't relevant now. Or do I need to bring up the jobs created in clean energy over the small amount created in coal? Unless you live in Nebraska, which is the only state in the union that relies primarily on coal.

 

I think those establishment duds are just too well seated in their districts. Kind of like the republican version of Nancy Pelosi.

 

Interesting.

Tell me.

How do you create steel?

 

The effective tax rate was anywhere between 2-5% higher during those post war years. How is that class warfare to advocate for that? Anytime I mention wealth disparity or say the rich; the top 1%, and even top .01% should pay more taxes to combat that problem; suddenly I want to "tear down" the rich and "blame them" for our problemsl. This is ridiculous. I want them to pay more; like say; that same 2-5% we mentioned earlier. That's not "ending capitalism as we know it"... rather it's returning to the capitalism we had in the 1960's. Redistribution of wealth is not a black and white issue; it's not as if we either redistribute all wealth so everyone is equal; or we redistribute none; there are degrees, middles, compromises and nuance to this issue. I advocate for a greater degree than we're doing now; that's it. That's not class warfare.

Medicaid for all; directly paid out of everyone's taxes. It will be cheaper per person compared to what they would've paid in insurance premiums AND it won't be tied to your job. Single-payer; it works around the world in many different forms. Germany, Canada and Australia are all solvent. We allocate 17% of our GDP for healthcare; Germany and France allocate 11/11.5%. Why do we do this?

As for Supply Side Economics; it works for the GDP and the stock market; it certainly does grow the economy - but all the meaningful gains go to the top. Is there no other way? We can't try something else? Is it always the solution, in every circumstance? The only way to grow the economy is by continuing to cut taxes? Don't we reach a point where taxes are low enough; and we could actually use some government spending; say on infrastructure, to help spur the economy?

Debt. The debt of the middle class and the debt of the poor. Real wages have stayed the same; but the cost of college; healthcare and childcare has all gone up. People borrow. Who lends them the money?

Just like the 1920's... great inequality; huge reliance on credit; toothless regulation.

 

Well, if you think burning, looting, and shooting people at ball practice will win elections for you - keep it up.

 

30.4% of US electricity is from coal.
Explain how coal is not relevant.

 

2-5% won't fund Medicare for all. That would take raising FICA to at least 30%. Are you willing to punish the poor that much? Because if you are going to castigate the rich and suggest that *they* pay for then you *are* advocating class warfare.

If the truth hurts you then stop advocating class warfare. Again, you can't make the poor rich by tearing down the rich. Loot at what that has done in Venezuela!

2-5% from the RICH is peanuts. It wouldn't actually even get rid of the annual deficit. It wouldn't even *start* to fund Medicare for all.

There are no degrees, middles, compromises,. or nuances to this issue. Redistribution of wealth simply doesn't work. Never has, never will. The good thing about the 60's was not the taxes the rich paid, it was the economic growth that resulted from America being the only major manufacturing power in the world. It would take another decade before Japan started flooding us with tin toys, cheap transistor radios, and toy cars! The 60''s were the heydays for Ford, Chevy, and GM. For companies like Philco that made TV's in America. And for American steel. Everything that was financed by capital investment from the rich, not from welfare to the poor.

Health care spending in the US is about $3T per year. That's just slightly less than what we take in every year in income tax. That means you will have to double everyone's income taxes in order to pay for it. You can call it FICA but it's still an income tax. Those in the 10% bracket will go to 20%. Those in the 35% bracket will go to 70% income tax.

These kinds of income taxes simply will never be levied on the American people. They will never stand for it.

Ask those workers in China if they got meaningful gains in their pay from the capital investment made by American companies in China!

You may not like it but we live in a global economy. That means we have to compete for jobs just like we compete in the car sector. Labor is just one more commodity on a macro basis. We can't compete on labor cost. Obama and the Marxist Democrats have made sure we can't compete based on energy costs. Raw material and shipping costs are set on the global market so we have no competitive edge there. So how else can we attract jobs back to America?

The knowledge of history by the Marxist Democrats is just ghastly. 99% of our infrastructure was built by local and state governments. That includes all kinds of things: farm-to-market roads, state highways, sewer systems, bridges, water treatment plants, city streets, storm drain systems, dams, city lakes used for water supply.

When did it become the responsibility of the federal government to take care of all this infrastructure? Who decided to transfer that responsibility? I don't remember a Constitutional Amendment doing it. I don't remember any state constitutional amendments having done it.

You *do* realize that businesses don't pay taxes, right? Business taxes are an expense. Expenses get loaded directly into the pricing equation. If you don't do that then taxes will bankrupt you. You simply cannot ignore expenses. So what happens is the consumer, read that as "taxpayer", winds up paying the taxes as part of the price they pay. Business are just a mask the government uses to tax you more!

Why do people borrow? My parents didn't borrow to put me through college. And they didn't have the means to pay for it either. I *worked* to put myself through. I worked my butt off in the hayfields of Kansas, I worked my butt off washing dishes in the dorm, I worked my butt off as a filling station attendant. And I went to a state school with a small scholarship based on my academic record in high school.

When did things change? Why do people have to borrow today? The dorms still need dishwashers. There is still farm work that can be done in the summer. There are still filling station attendant jobs, especially at night (which is good for studying because of low traffic). Even the universities today have lots more jobs than they did when I was in college. You don't have to go to a prestigious out-of-state school to get a good education.

What's changed?

And just like the 20's it's the living beyond ones means that is the problem. Trying to keep up with the Jones. My first son worked his butt off in high school and got a full ride to a state school. He now has a good job in IT. My youngest son has worked on his PhD for the last four years living on a $28k stipend in central St Louis - not a cheap place to live. And he has saved over $20k in a credit union account and $13K in a Roth IRA. But he works 12-16 hours per day, seven days a week, nor does he go out partying and clubbing three nights a week. He hasn't fathered any children with baby momma's.

it *can* be done. It can be done by *anyone*. But it takes discipline, a work ethic, and integrity. Something far too many people in our society today no longer have.