Democrats------->Socialism?
Why do Democrats contend that government should take care of its citizens instead of letting citizens make their own decisions? Why do Democrats lean more towards socialistic policies in terms of implementing social/socioeconomic programs? Do you think that Democrats have a history of socialism? Why? Why not?First, lets consider the effects of socialism on society.
What comes to my mind is high taxation. All wage earners and profit makers will be expected to contribute toward whatever others cannot provide for themselves to be able to survive on their own.
And the question is, why can't they provide for themselves and survive on their own?
The truth is, Democrats believe in giving them a pass, (helping them,) for various reasons.
Is it a civil rights issue?
Is it injustice in the form of discrimination?
Is it women without husbands through no fault of their own?
Is it women who get pregnant despite their best intentions not to?
Is it because some are temporarily or permanently down on their luck?
Is it because some have lost all family and/or friends who could lend a hand?
Is it because some have become addicted to alcohol and drugs?
It is good to help people, but when the government gets involved The People's money gets funneled elsewhere. Even better, is when churches, neighbors and charity organizations directly help those who need help.
Not relying on the government results in less taxation and more freedom for The People to manage their own money/earnings.I've been stewing on this one for a couple days now, not knowing how to respond.
Democrats----------> Socialism?
Its off... its not exactly what is going on.
What is really occurring, in real time, as we watch, is the dissolution of Nation States.
We are far less today America... and much more North America.
Mexican Cartels are far more prevalent and powerful within the US.
Canadian corporations today own far more Energy and Farming resources than we allowed prior to NAFTA... critical American resources and infrastructure owned by International corporations.
The Political Elite class is international, and views the world through a International lens. Which is why the idea of shipping in millions from places like Venezuela and Haiti doesn't even rise to the level of informing the American populace, let alone asking permission.
Those making the decisions do not want to answer to the rabble, to the deplorables that think citizenship or nationality even matter in the new, global order, that they are bringing into existence.
Or as Klaus is want to say... 'you will own nothing, you will have no rights, and you will be happy about it'.
As others like to say the Constitution, written by 55 wealthy white men and signed by only 39 of them, is not a framework for justice, but rather a rulebook written to enslave the populace.
In a rapidly evolving world with changing social, economic, and political needs, the Constitution is seriously outdated.
Seeking out the acceptance or permission of the uneducated and uninformed masses to make the changes needed in an ever changing world is an antiquated concept.
Incessant election cycles, staggered terms of office, and legislative sessions have kept social movements trapped in a failure loop.
It is understood by our elites, that the changes required can no longer be done by Amending the Constitution as set down by white men looking to solidify their power and control.
So these changes must be brought about on the International stage, where the Constitution is subordinated and effectively made inconsequential to International Law.
And that is what is going on... that is what a Harris Presidency ensures us.
Trump is the opposite of this, a vote for Trump is a vote to slow, or even stop, this change, this acceptance of International authority and control superseding Nationality and the American exceptionalism and citizenship we have always taken for granted.Interesting take!! I read it twice to absorb all the concepts. Thanks for sharing.
Curiosity struck while reading it and I sought answers. First is . . .
World's Most Influential Countries, 2024 by CEO World Magazine (Apr 4, 2024)
https://ceoworld.biz/2024/04/04/ranked- … ries-2024/
Rank Country Score
1 United States 95.29
2 China 95.09
3 Russia 94.26
4 India 94.16
5 France 94.15
6 Germany 93.63
7 United Kingdom 93.47
8 Japan 93.38
9 Saudi Arabia 93.12
10 Italy 92.84
The complete list is available with 194 countries
"The survey collected detailed data and information directly from 320,000 individuals across 11 data points, such as politicians, business leaders, global business executives, and policy experts. Experts were asked to rate countries on a scale of 1 “marginal” to 100 “outstanding” or “don’t know.” The margin of sampling error for the full sample of 320,000 respondents is plus or minus 1.2 percentage points. One should bear in mind that, as in all survey research, there are possible sources of error, such as coverage, nonresponse, and measurement error, that could affect the results."
Then I sought corporation. CEO Magazine had information on that too.
World’s Most Influential and Innovative Companies, 2024
https://ceoworld.biz/2024/01/13/worlds- … nies-2024/
The top ten are:
Bank of America
JP Morgan Chase & Co
Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco)
Exon Mobile
Microsoft
Apple
Shell
Toyota Motor
Industrial and Commercial of China Limited
Samsung Electronics - South KoreaI will do you one better than those (considering those lists, one should include this):
https://gfmag.com/banking/worlds-biggest-banks-2023/
Notice how that list differs from this one:
https://www.swfinstitute.org/fund-ranki … ng-company
And this one:
https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/05/ … world.aspx
And then consider this:
https://www.techopedia.com/who-owns-the-most-blk-stock
and this (if you can)
https://www.economist.com/leaders/2013/ … blackrock?
Else this:
https://www.fool.com/investing/how-to-i … krock-own/
So, you begin to see how twisted it all becomes?
Of course, you can get rather deep into things:
https://www.goldinglawyers.com/internat … x-evasion/
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the- … it-wealth/
If you follow enough of the bread crumbs, you will find out things like:
Chinese banks are bankrolling Mexican cartels.
The DNC is laundering money through Ukraine and into its coffers.
British banks are profiting off international slave trade networks.
And so much more.
If you want to know.I don't know if it is better, but definitely contributes to the collective information. Of course, better may just be opinion orientated.
More informed... it helps in moderating oneself, if nothing else.
Why would you let yourself get wound up about the issues, without delving into the depths.
For example, lets say you are very concerned with today's immigration policies.
Well then, in order to understand the "why" and the "how" you had better consider everything that relates to it:
Agenda 2030
The UN Global Compact on Migration (which Biden joined)
Those who fund and back the Cartels
Those who fund and back Child Slavery
Etc. etc.Thanks! I'll consider what you shared. Yet, I ask those questions not of me, but of those who take leader's word for such and such and then getting wound up on issues. It appears that is the case these days with the majority of the voting populace don't you think? I don't know, just guessing. You are always harping on going to sources that aren't mainstream, which I do do. I just don't advertise it as you do and I don't have a favorite issue or realm I would suspect. I am just a curious person by nature.
As to the last sentence, that has become obvious to me over time.
When it comes to wanting solid information regarding any foreign issue, whether I am researching a company or a country's actions, yes, I try and go to sources outside of America.
But in general, I just try to avoid MSM (main stream media) reporting. Take this for example, one guy destroying a whole lot of disinformation on his own, giving an honest view:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDpBh-Qi5dE
Brilliant stuff neither the right nor left leaning media will create.
Do you honestly believe that all citizens have the ability to take care of themselves? When they can't, what do you see as being the outcome?
A percolating economy with plenty of work and jobs is what enables people to be independent.
Education and having the skills to contribute to a percolating economy is what helps people provide for themselves and to survive on their own,(independence.)
The key is giving children a good start in life.
If you miss that window of opportunity to have your kids become strong, robust people, which they were destined to be, you actually contribute to a society of needy people who are instead, destined to rely on others, or when others are unwilling, the government.
Now, why oh why, would the government want to help people?
hmmmmm .....
What would the founding fathers say about this subject?
I think they would say the condition of being free is what allows people to be able to provide for themselves.
Is freedom not enough, anymore?
What has dumbed us down and made us so weak that we have so many problems?
I really think it stems from not knowing how to raise human beings.
Not knowing what their needs are in early childhood. Pure ignorance on a scientific level.
I'm sure the native American Indians had some knowledge. Too bad they've probably forgotten ... or we could ask them.Freedom is actually the most important thing. The native Americans had freedom. They had common sense. They had survived for eons of time, making mistakes and correcting them. We came along and decided we knew better. We actually didn't.
I have no hope. Trump would give us a glimmer of hope and possibility for freedom and independence, but I do not believe he will be elected. Maybe if there were more very strong, robust and confident people with common sense and intelligence, and the determination to preserve this democratic republic. There are many, but not enough. It is not "too big to rig."
I say this to soften the blow. I hope I am wrong ....I feel democrats often argue that the government should take care of its citizens because they believe in the idea of a social safety nets. This perspective stems from a belief that individuals may not always have the resources, ability, or support necessary to make the best decisions for themselves, especially in times of crisis.
Democrats tend to lean towards socialistic policies when implementing social and socioeconomic programs because they prioritize equity and aim to address systemic inequalities that affect marginalized communities.
As for the question of whether Democrats have a history of socialism, it can be argued that the party has embraced certain socialistic principles, particularly in its support for programs that promote collective welfare, such as Social Security and Medicare. While these programs may not be strictly socialistic in nature, they reflect a belief in the government's role in providing for its citizens.
Overall, the Democratic Party's historical advocacy for social programs demonstrates an alignment with traditional definitions of socialism.Curious . . . have you ever heard of a conservative/Republican turn down and refuse Social Security and/or Medicare in order to stand on principle? I haven't gone on an excursion to see, yet might. Of course there is the argument we paid into it, so it isn't socialistic? The same thing with unemployment.
Having such a successful and beloved socialist-like program at the heart of such a capitalistic society is perhaps the ultimate paradox. Or maybe it’s just good common sense.
In my view, conservatives often emphasize the principle of personal responsibility and believe in earning what you receive. View Social Security and Medicare as entitlements that people have rightfully earned through their contributions. I mean one needs to take into consideration individuality.
From their perspective, turning down these benefits would be illogical because they've already paid into them. On the other hand, conservatives tend to be more skeptical of new social programs, like those Kamala Harris and other progressives advocate for, because these would be funded by additional taxes on hardworking Americans. They might argue that these "free" giveaways aren't truly free—they come at the expense of taxpayers. Ultimately, conservatives often see a clear distinction between programs they've invested in throughout their working lives and new programs that would create more financial burdens through increased taxation.
Their belief in meritocracy leads many conservatives to be critical of any programs that provide benefits without requiring a prior investment or effort. They value systems that encourage self-reliance and economic independence, viewing "something for nothing" as undermining those principles.Don't true conservative principles lead toward the idea of people planning for their own needs in retirement?
Conservatives thought lends itself toward the idea of folks putting aside money in IRA accounts or the like rather than the government deciding how much and when they pay into the social security system, how much they receive in benefits, when they get them, and preventing almost everyone from opting out. There's a lot of government control over that money that's being paid in.
It only seems fair to say that Social Security is, in effect, a form of democratic socialism.Conservatives believe it is not only acceptable but essential to keep what one has earned or contributed to. They value personal responsibility and individual achievement, viewing it as common sense that people should retain the fruits of their own labor. This belief is a core characteristic of conservative thought, emphasizing self-reliance and fairness in reward for effort.
Common sense suggests that there is no reason to opt out of Social Security, as it functions as a form of savings derived from one's work. By contributing to the system throughout their career, individuals build a source of income they can rely on in retirement. It serves as a safety net, ensuring financial support later in life based on the earnings and contributions made over time. SS is not free in any respect.
Saying that Social Security is a form of democratic socialism is not entirely accurate because it operates within a capitalist framework rather than a socialist one. Social Security is a government-managed insurance program funded by payroll taxes, where workers and employers contribute to a trust fund that provides benefits to retirees, disabled individuals, and survivors. It is based on individuals contributing based on their earnings, with payouts reflecting their work history.
Social Security can be seen as a social insurance program rather than an example of socialism, as it doesn’t alter the structure of capitalism but provides support for individuals within it.
Social Security is not a tax in the traditional sense of being a payment to the government with no direct benefit tied to it. Instead, it functions as a form of insurance benefit, that one has put their own funds into.
I am not on board with paying for anyone's child care or helping with buying a home, or college-- all things I had to do on my own. I prefer Capotilism, and democray.there is no reason to opt out of Social Security,
Which would provide a better financial picture at retirement? Social security or contributions over the same period of time to an IRA account? (Hypothetically of course, assuming the option of being actually able to opt out of social security)
My bet is on the IRA. So, my government is taking those earnings from me instead of giving me the option to invest as I wish.When comparing Social Security to contributing to an IRA for retirement, there are distinct advantages and drawbacks to both. Social Security offers a guaranteed, inflation-adjusted income, which provides a stable safety net for retirees. Its payments are adjusted for inflation through Cost of Living Adjustments (COLAs), ensuring that retirees maintain some purchasing power over time. Additionally, because Social Security is not linked to market performance, it provides a risk-free source of retirement income, making it ideal for those who prefer stability and certainty.
However, Social Security tends to offer lower returns compared to what individuals could potentially earn through investing in an IRA. IRAs, depending on how they are invested, often yield higher returns over the long term, allowing individuals to grow their retirement savings more robustly. Unlike Social Security, which is mandatory and non-customizable, an IRA provides flexibility and the ability to tailor investment strategies to personal financial goals. That said, the growth of an IRA is subject to market fluctuations, meaning there is some degree of risk involved.
For individuals with the ability and discipline to contribute to an IRA over their working years, the potential for a larger nest egg exists. However, many people may not have the income, financial knowledge, or opportunities to contribute consistently to an IRA, making Social Security their primary source of retirement income. In an ideal situation where one could opt out of Social Security and invest those funds into an IRA, the IRA could provide a better financial picture at retirement, but this is heavily dependent on market performance and individual financial circumstances."In an ideal situation where one could opt out of Social Security and invest those funds into an IRA, the IRA could provide a better financial picture at retirement, but this is heavily dependent on market performance and individual financial circumstances"
But our government does not give us that choice.
I think we have several programs that can be considered close to socialist principles due to their focus on collective welfare and government intervention.
Medicare, medicaid, public housing, food assistance programs. unemployment insurance, community/public health centers, public education, head start and WIC.Totally agree. Don't you believe that it is the individual's responsibility to provide for/invest for himself/herself & his/her family instead of the government? Do modern Americans contend that it is the government's responsibility to provide them w/a comfortable lifestyle? Have the American government created a modern welfare state? What is your solution to remedy this?
This is a huge issue. There is certainly a lot of varying thought about the efficacy of social programs.
In a perfect world every single individual would be able to provide for themselves. In reality, we have always had and most likely always will have a segment in our population that for a number of reasons can not do so. The safety net programs are there, in my opinion, so that these people do not fall into even more dire straights that ultimately impact the rest of society.
We bail out corporations for the greater good, can the same be to applied to safety net programs?
I suppose I see some social programs as sort of a government insurance policy. Take social security for example. The government decides to take part of your earnings and set it aside for you so you'll be able to support yourself in older age. Why? Because odds are, many folks wouldn't take the responsibility of planning for their own retirement and the government would would end up with a huge "welfare" program for 70 year olds.
The government is never going to ingrain a sense of personal responsibility in anyone. But they probably could do a better job of enacting programs designed at addressing issues that drive a number in our population to "*welfare". I don't know, what would happen if we had comprehensive, effective mental health and addiction services available? In my opinion, we don't have enough prevention.I fully agree with you that it is to the benefit of the nation to provide a "safety net" for people who life has thrown a curve ball. For those that have lost their job, have had an accident and lost their health, for any of many reasons are temporarily in trouble and need help. I can also see where those born with a disability and in need of support and care should be take care of by a responsible culture.
But that is not where we are going and where we are - instead it has become a way of life for millions of Americans to depend on the charity of government (forcibly taken from those that worked for and earned the resources) for their daily needs. And that is not what the human species is, not what it should be, and ruinous to both the nation and the people in it.
Social Security - yes, a socialized program of sorts, but not in the same class or category as all the other welfare programs. As you pointed out, we decided to force a savings program onto people, forcing to pay for their own retirement years. That our politicians have grievously abused the program, using it more as a pocketbook for their welfare programs than as a retirement program paid for by the recipient, does not change that. That politicians ignored any form of fiduciary duty for those funds, instead "investing" them at the lowest possible return so they could be used for pork projects does not make it "welfare" changes nothing (except the pittance actually received rather than the easy life it should produce).
But government could ingrain a sense of personal responsibility. Start by denying the welfare program to those that don't truly need it (it is not possible that over half of our people are incapable of supporting themselves, yet they are given charity) - I guarantee the streets will not fill with emaciated corpses that starved to death. We used to find shame in accepting charity - bring that concept back. In a generation or two we will again have a nation of people that are able and willing to provide for themselves while at the same time holding a hand out to those that need a bit of help.I am addressing intelligent, able-bodied people who are on GENERATIONAL welfare. Something is wrong w/such people. They are of the school that society owes them for whatever reason. These people contend that it is the government's duty to provide for them. There are other people, again intelligent & able-bodied, who assert that housing, health care, & other amenities are rights which should be provided by the government. Of course, the mentally/intellectually/physically disabled should be cared for by social program. That isn't the issue but the issue is intelligent, able-bodied people who are on the government's dole.
Sadly, we have caused this ourselves. We see those that have nothing (particularly their children, children that may be hungry because Mom and Dad won't provide) and we feel bad. Our eyes leak when we see or think about it.
So we "help"; we provide for them, never thinking beyond immediate needs, never considering that we are producing that life long need when we keep doing it.
Our government owes us safety from other nations, safety from our fellow Americans, and very little else. There IS no "right" to health care, no "right" to free food, no "right" to free housing, and no "right" to free anything else. Earn it or do without.Sorry, but survival-of-the-fittest is a thing.
Unfortunately, we have a lot of people in America today that want free stuff, and aren't interested in: "There IS no "right" to health care, no "right" to free food, no "right" to free housing, and no "right" to free anything else. Earn it or do without."
Why do you think we have 10 million new migrants under Biden-Harris, because they were told they would have to work hard and nothing is free?
Heck no, millions of migrants today are getting better funding and care from our government than many Veterans and Homeless Americans.
We are on the precipice of change... many Americans cannot imagine how significantly things will change in a very short amount of time... the first four years of the Biden Administration did much of the legwork, all that is needed is a Harris presidency to cement it and move it forward.
Consider these words of RFK Jr:
https://youtu.be/wmUejrx0Z8A?t=66
Consider the words of Tulsi:
https://youtu.be/4Z9VKhIfCVw?t=105
When these people, the RFK and Tulsi of the world... along with the Eric Weinstein and Elon Musk of the world... are spending all their time, yelling out warning to America, and essentially telling America this is it... if you don't vote for Trump, your country, and your lives, will change irreparably and forever... for the worse... you might want to ask yourself why. And then you might want to listen to what they are saying.
"intelligent, able-bodied people who are on GENERATIONAL welfare"
You are so right. I had a business and hired a very smart young lady trying to get out of that mind set. She explained to me how families pass information to one another concerning how best to get benefits. She told me she was looked down upon by her family because she got a job. They felt she had abandoned them...what? The social pressure in her neighborhood to get benefits was incredible.
She broke the cycle but explained the struggle she experienced trying to change her way of thinking and approach to life.
You are so right...the entitlement mentality is alive and well in our society.
I am surprised to say this to YOU!
Exactly!
Yes, I have. It is probably not common, but I do recall the last conservative president of the US refusing his salary so that the money could go back to the coffers.
I have a serious medical condition that is listed as a reason for early retirement by our socialist government and a socialist friend of mine was trying to get me to accept early retirement and live off the government. I am still able to work and refused.
Here in Brazil, as in most countries in the West, we do have socialized medicine so I do use that.I imagine they feel entitled to it... they have to pay into those programs whether they want to or not.
If anyone deserves the right to use those services it would be the working stiffs paying into them all their lives... Those are the same people who are most often Conservative.
But who knows... I am sure there are some people fully dependent on government welfare and social services who are conservative... Somewhere.
Social program: Let's direct funds to ensure nobody has to sleep on the street and nobody dies a miserable death from a curable disease. This way we can make life more safe and prevent people from sooner or later becoming a danger... Think mental health and substance social programs.
Socialist program: Let us collectivise agriculture. This way we can bring a bigger part of the economy under direct control of the government and have more people work under the collectivist economy. Also think, nationalizing our country's natural resources such as oil.
The two are often conflated.The proposal to redirect funds toward social programs to eliminate homelessness and prevent deaths from curable diseases, while seemingly noble, raises significant concerns about its alignment with democratic principles. Primarily, this approach could lead to increased government control over individual lives, undermining personal freedoms and autonomy. By prioritizing government-managed solutions, there's a risk of fostering dependency on state assistance rather than encouraging self-sufficiency. Furthermore, while the intention is to enhance safety and mental health, such programs could inadvertently stifle innovation and personal initiative, as citizens might rely on government support rather than seeking private solutions or entrepreneurial endeavors.
In contrast, the concept of collectivizing agriculture and nationalizing natural resources presents even greater challenges to democracy. This centralization of economic power in the hands of the government could diminish competition and limit choices for consumers. It risks creating inefficiencies typical of state-run enterprises, potentially leading to food shortages and economic stagnation. The emphasis on collectivism may suppress dissent and individual expression, as the government would exert more influence over the economy and, by extension, over people's lives. Ultimately, while the intentions behind these proposals may be to create a more equitable society, they could undermine the democratic values of freedom, individualism, and economic diversity.
Your views seem to express and align with key tenets of Marxism. Marxism advocates for the collective ownership of the means of production, which includes ideas like collectivizing agriculture and nationalizing natural resources. Additionally, the focus on social programs to address homelessness and health disparities echoes Marxist ideals of ensuring that basic needs are met for all individuals, emphasizing the role of the state in redistributing resources.
I appreciate your perspective on these social and economic proposals. Do you feel that this approach represents a better form of governing compared to our democratic systems?
Maybe it can be argued that every single instance of collective welfare has removed certain freedoms.
Maybe tough love and survival of the fittest is the most logical approach in the final analysis.
Maybe the government's only job is to protect the nation/the people from outside and inside forces/sources of war and invasion, and preserve our constitution which guarantees our rights.
Maybe the people need to man the f up.Maybe people need to get rid of someone who does not believe in borders and ships in people from other countries to INVADE our communities/precious cities for whatever nefarious reasons.
Get Kamala Out of Here!
It is beyond reason and comprehension to put up with this treasonous female.I was going to sit back and relax now that my hand is healed and working pretty darn good.
But no. I will keep keyboarding here,
I realize this site and these forums are intended to be a place for research.
So, I will be explaining/revealing why I think Kamala Harris would be a dangerous president.
Anyone can determine that Kamala is focused on civil rights issues, but in addressing cilvil rights for minorities, we cannot give up the responsibility of preserving the constitutional rights for ALL.The truth is we can provide for our own future without relying on the government to manage our money. What happens if the funds run out because of situations involving the government ... beyond our control?
I know people who have paid very little into social security and are working toward their own retirement savings / benefits.
I myself was denied the proper amount of social security money that was due me by the government telling me I did not meet certain stipulations. But I did.
I could not even fight it.For 2024 Social Security facts take a peek at . . .
Fact Sheet / Social Security
https://www.ssa.gov/news/press/factshee … ct-alt.pdf
20% of 2024 population receives some kind of social security benefit
One interesting presented fact is;
"An estimated 184 million workers will work in OASDI-covered employment in 2024.
ο 31% of the workforce in private sector has no access to private pension coverage.
ο About two-thirds (63%) of workers report they are currently saving for retirement.
Having an employer-sponsored retirement savings plan is a key factor in whether
Americans save for retirement. Only 16% of those without access to an employer-
sponsored plan said they have any retirement savings."So straight up, would you consider SS to a social program to pay for childcare in the country, a pay-off of student loans benefit, or a first-time homeowner program that offers assistance of some form?
I have a challenge understanding the question. Oops! Are you saying there can be Social Security 'or' one or more of those you shared? In other words, it is one or the other? Are you asking me to list all four by priority regarding which would benefit society and the governed most?
I'm afraid with the last question I cannot fathom a guess, but from the self serving perspective 'today' I would go with social security as the top priority. However, that gives question to how much should I sacrifice for 'love' of country? Today vs. Tomorrow?I see I really messed up the context of my comment.
Do you consider Social Security a genuine social program?
Would you support your tax dollars being used for initiatives like child daycare, universal healthcare, $6,000 for a child's first year, up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and Harris's plan to permanently increase the Child Tax Credit to $3,600 for children five and under, and $3,000 for those aged six to 17, along with an additional $6,000 credit for newborns in their first year?
If you are on board, do you feel taxes would need to be raised to pay for these social programs? Have you found any information on how Harris plans to pay for all these added costs?
I only ask to ascertain a view from an independent. I hope you will share.
Why do we (or is it the politicians?) associate Social Security with Old Age Pensions and Subsidies? Freedom and Peace are the essential components of Security. The Freedom to live peacefully and fearless of the governmental bodies and terrorist attacks, etc.
"The Freedom to live peacefully
and fearless of the governmental bodies and terrorist attacks, etc."
1. Governmental bodies.
A. House:
B. Senate:
C. Justice Department:
2. Terrorist attacks.
ETC:
3. Financial Abuse by foreign nations.
4. Illegal Alien Invasions.
A. Sex trafficking of children and women.
B. Drug trafficking and all that goes with it.
C. Murders, rapes and random mistreatment of citizens.
D. Illegal takeovers of real-estate and establishments.
5. Deep State Shenanigans.
6. Abuses of our freedoms (in the name of rights.)
A. Abusive speech.
B. Same-gender marriage.
C. Corruption of the youth, (through so many avenues.)
D. Over-Tolerance of lawbreakers and criminals.
E. Fantasy-implementing policies.
F. Law breaking, in general.
7. Government Overreach toward its citizens:
A. Surveillance.
B. Lockdowns.
C. Paintball-shootings at "non complying" residents.
D. Locking up citizens for ungrounded suspicions.
E. Deeming people guilty before they are tried.
"Would you support your (everyones) tax dollars being used for initiatives like
1. Child daycare,
2. Universal healthcare,
3. $6,000 for a child's first year,
4. Up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers, and Harris's plan 5. to permanently increase the
6. Child Tax Credit to $3,600 for children five and under
7. Child Tax Credit to$3,000 for those aged six to 17
8. $6,000 credit for newborns in their first year?"
(Thank You, Sharlee)
If Kamala could could give these benefits to blacks only, she would.
Can we let her do that? Maybe for like ten years?
This could be considered a form of Reparations.
Problem is, such a program would not be happily given up in ten years by those benefiting.
Could we (collectively) afford to continue contributing to such a scheme?
Would we be willing?
________________________________________________
Abraham Lincoln foresaw this problem and truly thought the best solution would be to ship the freed slaves back to their homeland. The ship owners were not willing to do that.
Did having the blacks remain in America, (rather than being shipped home,) present a dilemma which lingers to this very day?
What makes it a dilemma?
~ The Whites unacceptance of Blacks?
~ The Black's unacceptance of themselves?
Its a horrible topic, but obviously the time has come to address all the difficulties directly and consciously.
We must isolate every single difficulty, one by one. A tedious task.
~ start here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=afIy2rDVecIWhite men and women could have assisted newly freed slaves, early on, by helping educate adults and their children, but I don't know if blacks were accepting of what white neighbors and teachers could have offered. They may still be resistant to what whites could offer them. All they really want is $$$$$$$$$$$.
They do not believe they have the same opportunities as whites. This is a mind set that needs to change and that's all it is:
A mind set.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pOEhrY1D6rI"Up to $25,000 in down payment assistance for first-time homebuyers."
Where is this money coming from.universal health care?
https://www.who.int/health-topics/unive … #tab=tab_1
I find the relationship between far-left socialism and religion to be quite complex. Historically, some far-left ideologies, particularly those rooted in Marxism, have been critical of religion. Marx famously called it the "opiate of the masses," implying that it distracts people from the real social injustices they face.
That said, I found the TikTok released by my governor to be deeply offensive on several levels. At first, I felt it was exploiting a sexual act of a woman feeding another woman a treat, in a position reminiscent of a dog begging for a treat. It seemed disrespectful and dehumanizing. Moreover, considering this governor's far-left ideals, I couldn't help but feel that it was also mocking Catholics taking communion. This clip feels emblematic of far-left ideologies, and I think it’s crucial to bring attention to it. Do we really want this kind of disgusting rhetoric in our lives, in our society?
In my view, they seek to make all that is good and positive appear bad and unacceptable. This aspect of socialism, particularly the dismissal of religion, is something that needs to be considered.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myGEaRnOX6A
Related Discussions
- 30
Opening Pandora's Box HERE-SOCIALISM, An IDEA For America?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 6 years ago
There are those who strongly, even vehemently argue that socialism will improve the socioeconomic condition in America. They maintain that the PROBLEM in America stems from stark socioeconomic inequality. They assert that if socialism is adopted, there would be more income...
- 24
Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/Freedom
by Kathryn L Hill 8 years ago
The essence of the current battle seems to be this:Liberalism/Socialism vs Republicanism/FreedomWe have to keep this country free. The Constitution, rightly understood and followed, provides the laws/boundaries which preserve our freedom and our rights.Is it so hard for the left to understand the...
- 59
Are Social Security and Medicare entitlements?
by Petra Vlah 12 years ago
Through our working years we all paid for Social Security and Medicare, so why are they considered entitlements when in fact we contributed our own money into the system?
- 30
Republican Socialism: Trump’s Budget SLASHES Medicare/Social Security
by JAKE Earthshine 5 years ago
Everyone knew this atrocious scheme by Donald Trump was coming sooner or later, and we must Thank the Good LORD “Powerhouse” Nancy Pelosi and her new Progressive Democratic House of Representatives were voted in during the last midterm election and can now OBSTRUCT & Halt Trump’s and his...
- 31
Senior Citizen Parasites?
by Doug Hughes 13 years ago
George Will - "Steady 5 percent growth probably won't happen. Also, his pledge to get federal spending down to 18 percent of GDP is very hard to do with an aging population and a welfare state that exists to transfer wealth to the elderly."A lot of people, myself included, believe in the...
- 292
What should be done about Social Security?
by Ralph Deeds 12 years ago
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/31/opini … ef=opinionSocial Security, Present and FutureBy THE EDITORIAL BOARDPublished: March 30, 2013 6 Comments"In the fight over the federal budget deficit, Social Security has so far been untouched. That may soon change.Today's Editorials"In last...