• administrators

    @boothe Agreed. Mostly I see it as crony governments allocating money to inflate certain products. We experienced a similar issue with wheat. Ever wonder why the federally approved food pyramid has breads/grains as the base of the pyramid even though it’s probably the most nutrient deficient out of all the groups? Government lobbying to increase the production and usage of wheat/grains.

  • @boothe My dad farmed for a living, we ran 540 acres with about 200 head of cattle, 120 milk cows. We hated those subsidies. If someone is willing to jump through the government hoops and apply for grants, the government will give them money. If not, you were left to the free market, a market whose prices were driven down by a glut of subsidized commodities. In the 1980’s, milk in the store cost about $1.80, We, the producers saw about 45-50 cents per gallon. The extra $1.50 goes to bottling, shipping, and selling. Those subsidies were killing the little man who was unable to jump through the government hoops.

  • @jak That’s absolutely right. Between the cereal / bread / pastry manufacturers, the wheat / corn farming cartels and their bought and paid for “representatives” in government, we have the Standard American Diet. It is literally killing the country! The obesity and diabetes epidemic is the result of this effort to force feed us grains. If you make this the bulk of your diet or even a significant portion, you can expect to develop “wheat belly”, become morbidly obese, end up on prescription meds and eventually need back surgery, knee and hip replacements. This benefits big medical and big pharma as much as it does the grain producers / processors. It benefits big government by creating a populace of fat, sick, dependents that can be assured to vote a certain way. In exchange, they get WIC and “food stamps” (now a SNAP card) so they can go buy more of this toxic food with our hard earned money, further enriching those who set the stage for this to begin with. This is the full cycle of socialism. You will find out that it is a vicious cycle indeed if you genuinely try to curtail it.

  • @jim-johnson I completely understand. And it’s not bad enough that the gun-vermin will give them money. But the gun-vermin are giving them your money!

  • @boothe While I agree that all of that is really bad… it’s not “the full cycle of socialism” and has nothing to do with socialism. It may be being implemented by socialists, but its not technically socialism.

  • @ainigmaris-thales As far as the pure dictionary definition goes, you are quite right.

    Socialism: 1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

    But in practice, “socialism” is invariably a system where the government and their cronies fleece the public and keep the rest of the population in dependence on and fear of the ruling elite and their henchmen. You can’t have community property in the form of farms, factories and stores and expect it to work. It doesn’t work because when everyone owns it, it belongs to no one and no one can profit from it. So no one will care enough about it to take care of it unless they are forced to. Then they will only do so grudgingly and at a bare minimum.

    The most shrewd, amoral and ambitious operators will take the system over and use it for their own gain. Think hunting lodges in the Crimea, dachas in the Ukraine and Mercedes limos for the high ranking government officials and their elite cronies in the USSR. Versus little concrete box apartments, food and clothing shortages, worthless money and labor camps for the masses in the USSR. This was the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics we’re talking about here. The veritable poster child for practical “socialism.” Theoretical socialism is just that, a theory. It does not and cannot exist in physical reality because of human nature.

  • @jammyjaybird said in JammyJayBird...:

    That’s why discussing this stuff is so difficult. Where do we draw the line between a “shared cost” and something that is “redistributive”?

    I’ve never found it difficult at all to differentiate. The criteria is primary purpose and who the direct supposed beneficiary is. Check to see if it contains elements of wealth transfer from those with means to those without.

    For instance, the primary purpose of firefighters is to put out fires, without respect to the value of the property on fire.

    We can give the elements that fall on either side of this test any name you wish. Realize that many will call it socialism, and perhaps calling it socialism is a form of shorthand, and perhaps it’s not fully in agreement with the dictionary definition, and perhaps you don’t like the way people use the word. But none of that matters. Your sole option appears to be “get over it” - unless you intentionally wish to avoid the distinction and want to stay mired in a semantic argument.

  • Farewell, Individual Mandate.
    Created by a GOP think tank.
    Implemented by a GOP governor.
    But then the black Democratic POTUS adopted it & it had to go.
    So now uninsured sick ppl can show up at ERs
    & local taxpayers foot the bill.
    Congrats, MAGA folk - you finally got socialized health care…

  • @jammyjaybird I worked in an ER. Even after Obamacare hospitals lost money hand over fist. Actually, I think it has gotten worse because of all the extra regulations that get you slapped with fines if you don;t comply.

    What you’re going to see is hospitals crack down on non-emergent ER visits. Our physicians assess the patient and if they’re not deemed emergent they have to either pay $200 if uninsured or a deductible if they have insurance. I bet this will become common place to cut losses. A good 60% of ER visits could go to a clinic or just tough it out. And that figure is conservative.

    The government and insurance companies are all in bed together

  • @jammyjaybird said in JammyJayBird...:

    But then the black Democratic POTUS adopted it & it had to go.

    I see. It’s not because I think it’s outside the scope of legitimate government function, it’s because I’m racist.

  • Re: The tax bill.

    Tax cuts across the board. $60 a year for the bottom third. Woo woo!

    What’s NOT said: If you factor in disappearing deductions – for property tax, mortgage interest, charitable contribution, and state & local tax – most people will see a medium-scale to huge tax INCREASE. Especially once Congress start to attack social programs that the bottom quintile depends on for life – Medicare, Medicaid, etc. Already 9 million children are losing health insurance because of failure to refund CHIP. Those aren’t lazy adults or drug addicts – those are innocent children, and we’re the wealthiest country in the history of the world, and we are saying that we don’t want them to grow up healthy.

    Let’s be clear. This bill is a fucking goat rodeo. It will represent – INDIRECTLY – a cost of living increase for all poor and middle-class Americans.

  • @jumpnjive 100% agreed about the ER visits. The huge hit that the Repugs are delivering to social programs, both federal and state, is going to cause a spike in unnecessary ER visits. Hospitals are gonna have to be the bad guy and play triage.

    And we are the wealthiest country in the history of the world. Let the hypocrisy of that sink in.

    I travel a lot, and I’ve been telling people who want to immigrate to the US to forget about it. This is a fucking awful place to be struggling, or poor, or sick … and thanks to me-first-my-money-mine-mine-mine-mine attitudes like the ones expressed here, it’s just going to get worse.

  • @jammyjaybird Let’s just have some charity hospitals. They are free but you don’t go expecting top notch care. You get the bare minimum needed. From my experience a lot of what drives costs up is the excessive testing and materials used because doctors are worried about being sued for any little thing. I’ve seen a doctor go from someone who didn’t order extraneous tests on patients to someone who orders everything under the sun on everyone because he got sued once. We expect doctors to be right 100% of the time and that’s just not possible. remove fear of litigation and crack down on insurance companies overcharging and watch the prices drop.

  • @jammyjaybird Goddamn, you sound like a whiny little bitch. Reciting Nancy Pelosi talking points like a 12 year old girl. Hey, Lena Dunham called, she wants her sandy vadge back.

    Like there is a single iota of difference between the elite in the Democrat and the Republican parties. They are all elitist, entitled fucks. They play this little D vs R game to hide how much they are all fleecing us for.

    Yeah, there is a lot of shit in the tax bill that sucks – nothing gets out of congress that isn’t full of pork and benefits for the corporations that fund the politicians on both sides of the aisle. But bringing down the tax rates overall is a good thing for the economy, and everyone does better when the economy does better. At least it gives people who are willing to work hard a fighting chance.

    And if you hate this country so much, why the fuck are you still here? I’m sure Canada would fucking love you to come up there and enjoy their socialist health care. Venezuela is socialist as fuck, too. Go down there and enjoy some exotic cuisine like fucking lions from the zoo because the stores are all out of food.

  • @ainigmaris-thales Thanks! You saved me the trouble. Jammy is still politically Blue Pill. He believes there is a substantive difference within the false dichotomy that is the beltway. They are parasites and we are the hosts. If what we see going on were merely the result of bureaucratic bumbling and legislative ineptitude, at least occasionally they would err in our favor. What I find entertaining about Jammy is his belief that somehow, by making some of his neighbors pay for his and his other neighbors shit at gunpoint, this will improve everyone’s life. Stealing is stealing: it doesn’t matter if the gun-vermin do it for you by proxy or how noble your intent and purposes are. I invite all of the socialist / collectivist stripe to grow a set, show up at my door with their own gun and order me to pay for their shit directly. We’ll see how THAT works out for them.

  • @ainigmaris-thales said in JammyJayBird...:

    ey, Lena Dunham called, she wants her sandy vadge back.
    thats exquisite…

  • @boothe Actually, my view is motivated by both practicality and sympathy, particularly w/r/t health insurance. We live in the wealthiest country in the world, and we somehow cannot find it within ourselves to provide basic health insurance for all?

    Or, when we finally get our shit together to provide basic health insurance for all, such as the ACA, those programs get defunded by Republicans, and their advocates like me get called communists, leftists, or idiots. None of which describe me. Don’t forget that the individual mandate was a Republican idea.

    I travel a lot, I study other countries. Most of my friends are international and we actually discuss this stuff fairly often. The U.S. is unique among developed nation for this harsh fuck-your-sick-children-they’re-all-parasites-on-my-tax-dollars attitude. Every other developed country – literally every one – understands that a healthy populace is essential for a healthy overall society, and they’re willing to give up a few dollars in corporate profits to ensure that. Because we will eventually absorb the costs of sick people anyways. Sick people pull you down in a million other ways. You can’t hide from them.

    So stop calling me blue pill. I’ve thought a lot about this stuff, I’ve studied it extensively, and my viewpoint is far more informed than you think. Understand?

  • @ainigmaris-thales I don’t know why I’m debating you, because you’re pretty hostile, but three points:

    1. The two parties are no longer equally criminal. That’s a false equivalence. At this point in history, elected Republicans are flatout criminals. They’re fleecing the working class and the middle class in ways that the Democrats do NOT. Democrats definitely have their own problems – like ordinary corruption – but Repubs are passing tax bills designed to plunge the US into 1.5 trillion of debt, most of which will be contained by massive cuts to the social programs that our most vulnerable citizens depend upon. Dems, instead, pass things like the ACA, which are designed to help the poorest people maintain a decent standard of living. Got it?

    2. Who said I hate this country? Why don’t YOU turn a critical eye towards the flaws of our society and try to fix them? That’s all I’m doing.

    3. Stay civil.

  • administrators

    @jammyjaybird I agree on the sentiment, but have to take issue with a few of the points you bring up.

    If the government cared so much about our health, they’d revamp their approved food pyramid to something more healthy instead of what they got now. They’d also eliminate the subsidies for corn and wheat farms as these foods are nutritionally defunct. This implies to me that they don’t care about our health, but would rather get everyone dependent on the government in order to care for them. Poison the population then provide the cure; an old trick we’re still falling for.

    Also, the “fuck-your-children” sentiment you expressed is a bit of a strawman. Most people opposed to more welfare programs are opposed because they see the blatant abuse in the current welfare programs. I’ve read and heard countless stories of people with food stamps going out and buying tons of junk food while we people who support ourselves have to count our pennies and cut out such luxury items. We simply know the same will happen with “free” health insurance.

    A lot of people would be more accepting of welfare programs IF they were more stringent with who gets these benefits and what they can use said benefits for. As it stands now, they are completely mismanaged and a disaster. I don’t see it being any different for the healthcare/health insurance industries if the government gets involved.

  • @jammyjaybird

    1. The national debt increased by roughly $9 trillion during the 8 years of Obama’s Democrat presidency, which is an increase of like 85%, more than $1 trillion each year. The figure you are quoting about Trump’s tax reform bill increasing the national debt by $1.5 trillion is a static score, meaning it doesn’t take into account any growth the reduction in tax rates may bring about. But even if you take the $1.5 trillion number as the worst case scenario for the tax reform bill, that is projected to occur over the next TEN YEARS. I will take a $1.5 trillion increase in the national debt over 10 years versus a $9 trillion increase over 8 years any day.

    2. Sorry, I couldn’t hear you over the sound of your sandy vadge flapping.

    3. There is no need for me to be civil with someone who is blatantly lying.

Log in to reply

Looks like your connection to A Kings Castle was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.