Economics Thread

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.
 
Carp said:
So because he doesn't support socialism makes it okay when he uses socialist actions? Is that what you're saying?
Click to expand...

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?
 
thethe said:
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?
Click to expand...

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
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
goldfly said:
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
Click to expand...


To end socialism, we have to use socialism. Don't you get it? This is the Way.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-crime-heres-what-we-know-israels-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.
 
Carp said:
Oh really?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...e-crime-heres-what-we-know-israels-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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Carp said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...

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?
 
Carp said:
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?
Click to expand...

Which article?
 
Carp said:
The article about the West Bank I listed earlier in the thread.
Click to expand...

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.
 
thethe said:
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.
Click to expand...


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...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top