Robert Reich
@RBReich
·
17h
Billionaire Dan Gilbert donated $750,000 to Trump’s inaugural committee.
He then received massive federal tax breaks for a multi-billion dollar real estate project, even though it didn’t qualify for the program.
America has socialism for the rich, harsh capitalism for the rest.
The best way to stop a bad guy with a gun is to make sure he doesn’t get a gun.
So because he doesn't support socialism makes it okay when he uses socialist actions? Is that what you're saying?Originally Posted by thethe
Yes it is because the end desired result is not socialism. It's very clear and I'm not sure why you're struggling with this.
Once we destroy China in the trade war the tariffs will be lifted and the subsidy to farmers will dissapear.
What will happen if Medicare for all is implemented? When will that be taken away?
Natural Immunity Croc
Well you say you are against all forms of socialism, but apparently that doesn't apply when Trump supports it. Just like the pointless Wall that will consume a large portion of tax payer money and imposes upon citizen's lands. For someone who is so staunchly against socialism, you sure seem okay with Trump's socialist agenda.
As for medicare for all, we are literally the only rich country that is still using privatized health insurers as the main health coverage for our citizens. And we spend 2-3 times more per capita than any of the others. I still have plenty of issues with all of the Medicare for All proposals, but the cost of it is not one of those issues.
oh, so from thethe logic
to implement socialism here
we just have to make sure to not usa the word socialism
we can do all the socialism stuff as long as we don't say the word
it makes perfect sense
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
Carp (12-09-2019)
Both arguments are awful. Walls work and have in every instance of civilization. For a more modern piece of evidence see Israel.
Trump isnt supporting socialism. He is supporting not penalizing our citizens for failed leadership for the last 30 years that allowed china to go unchecked while the globalists profited.
Natural Immunity Croc
For one, wrong. Walls do not always work and history is littered with examples of this. In fact, throughout history, Walls have largely been attached to oppression. And it's no coincidence the same is true now. The Berlin Wall is evidence of this.
Secondly, bailouts are textbook socialism. In fact, that typically was example number one Republicans used to use when calling Obama a socialist, Yet Trump's bailout cost taxpayers double as much Obama's auto bailout. Want to know what else is textbook socialism? Forcing tax payers to pay for a ridiculous wall and the upkeep of said wall that more than half the country does not want. And also seizing private lands to build the damn thing.
So again, you support socialism when it's Trump that's pumping it.
To end socialism, we have to use socialism. Don't you get it? This is the Way.
Berlin Wall wasnt meant to keep people out. Irrelevant example and you quickly gloss over how the wall has worked in Israel.
The Wall is an example of the federal government's sole responsibility and that's to keep the US citizens safe. It's an absurd point to state that this is socialism.
Natural Immunity Croc
Oh really?
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...els-west-bank/
(sorry, I can't link with the site the way it is)
And this wall hardly keeps the American people safe. Not to mention, it's impossible to cover the entire border, meaning there's literally hundreds of miles that cannot be accounted for.
Yeah because the cartels, drugs and human trafficking isnt an issue.
Who said the wall needed to be on 100% of the border for it to work? Another lame talking point from those that oppose a clear solution.
A wall will not affect those things. The vast majority still comes accross via entry points.
And the point is, if it can't cover the entire border, border crossers will simply go where there isn't a wall.
The majority of apprehended contraband comes through POE. That's what happens when there are guards. We have no clue what comes through other areas.
If you limit the free space then ease of crime will be limited.
Natural Immunity Croc
"For there is always light, if only we are brave enough to see it. If only we are brave enough to be it." Amanda Gorman
"When Fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross"
More proclamations of a slowing economy? Where have we heard that before?
You are high if you think the government doesn't know how much and where the majority of drugs are funneled into the US. Considering that's the easiest entry point, logic also dictates that is where the majority come across.
Crime will just be displaced, not limited. Did you not read the article about the West Bank?
Which article?
The article about the West Bank I listed earlier in the thread.
There are natural boundaries on the border that do not need a wall so the full distance does not need to be covered.
Also, by diverting any illicit activity uiu allow our limited resources to focus on a smaller area to encorce.
I'm not sure how that article helped your argument.
The article proved it didn't cut down on the rate of crime. Since that's a pretty big reason for a wall, that's pretty relevant.
These "natural boundaries" are BS. There is nothing to prevent people from crossing rivers/mountains/canyons. Not to mention, the government will have to seize private land, even Native American reservations, in order to make this work. For someone that claims to be small government anti-socialism, you sure support are pretty friggin huge government and socialist endeavor. But oh, it's "protection for the people" so it's ok. Like universal healthcare isn't protecting the people...
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote