Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vambo

Former G.W. Bush appointees supporting Biden have embraced socialist policies – why?

Recommended Posts

Cause Trump a fucking moron most likely. There are some in the GOP who has principles and/or morals. They aren't all klan members, morons or sycophants.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because Americans support socialist policies when it benefits them i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Tax Exemptions, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BaconHound said:

Because Americans support socialist policies when it benefits them i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Tax Exemptions, etc.

Much in the same way that goldfish will eat as much as you put in the bowl. The path of least resistance and the politics of envy is always a strong selling point. Unfortunately.

WSS

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also Bacon I'd venture to say that people love social security because they are stupid and don't realize that they're getting fucked on their investment. That's another problem with taking the path of least resistance.

WSS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaconHound said:

Because Americans support socialist policies when it benefits them i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Tax Exemptions, etc.

nope. SS and Medicare - we pay into that all our working lives. Unless you figure that they want to give it also to illegals.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaconHound said:

Because Americans support socialist policies when it benefits them i.e. Social Security, Medicare, Tax Exemptions, etc.

You pay into social security so no it's not a socialist policy, it's OK you just had a Biden moment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Vambo said:

You pay into social security so no it's not a socialist policy, it's OK you just had a Biden moment.

Bro, yes it is..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Axe said:

Bro, yes it is..

No it not, is it universal does everyone get the exact same amount and if you don't pay in you don't take out.  If it was a socialist policy everyone gets it and the same amount the entire point is everyone is equal in a socialist state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bro, they didn't call it "Social" Security for nothing..

" if you don't pay in you don't take out "

Yer joking right?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Axe said:

Bro, they didn't call it "Social" Security for nothing..

" if you don't pay in you don't take out "

Yer joking right?

 

 

  • Social Security is one of the most popular and important financial security nets for retirees in the United States.
  • Workers pay into the program while they are younger and then receive guaranteed lifetime income after retirement.
  • Some people consider this socialism since the government is involved in the rules, collection, and distribution of funds—but that would be an incorrect interpretation of socialism.
  • Social Security is, however, a form of social welfare that ensures the elderly have some minimum level of income.

https://www.investopedia.com/articles/retirement/122916/are-social-security-benefits-form-socialism.asp

Socialism as Government-Based Economic Production

By definition, socialism refers to a form of economic production, whereby workers co-own and co-produce goods and services, sharing in the profits—as opposed to capitalism, wherein a business owner owns all of the tools and other means of production and keeps all of the profits while paying workers a wage.

 

More recently, socialism has been, correctly or incorrectly, conflated with statist forms of government. Under this definition of socialism, the government—rather than individuals or businesses—owns and controls major industries, and the economy is planned centrally.

 

Consequently, the government is the main provider of goods and services for its citizens. Under capitalism, capital goods are owned by private individuals or businesses, and the market controls the economy. In most modern countries, however, this system is subject to federal and state legislation and regulations, and so these countries do not practice pure, laissez-faire capitalism. At the far end of the spectrum is communism, a more extreme form of socialism. Some countries—Norway and Sweden, for instance—have mixed systems: providers of goods and services enjoy private ownership of resources, while citizens take advantage of social-needs-oriented public services.1 2

 

Though the U.S. is clearly a capitalist country, one of the hallmarks of its government system is Social Security, a government-run benefits program instituted in 1935, in the depths of the Great Depression.3 Let’s examine the key components of Social Security retirement benefits—specifically, the extent to which they might be considered a form of socialism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Vambo said:

You pay into social security so no it's not a socialist policy, it's OK you just had a Biden moment.

If you are healthy you will get much more than you paid in.  The government a holding and investing your money for you. It’s a government run program that returns more money than you paid in most circumstances.

” a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Here is a less tailored definition of socialism that may not fit your narrative but it still quite valid.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

I” a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

which actually proves Vambo's point, yes?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, BaconHound said:

If you are healthy you will get much more than you paid in.  The government a holding and investing your money for you. It’s a government run program that returns more money than you paid in most circumstances.

” a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.”

Here is a less tailored definition of socialism that may not fit your narrative but it still quite valid.

 

Not everyone can get it you have to pay into it for 10 to 15 years before you are eligible unlike a socialist program everyone gets a share regardless if they pay in or not and that is a big reason it fails because people don't want to work to support everyone else.

Think it through please.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Vambo said:

Not everyone can get it you have to pay into it for 10 to 15 years before you are eligible unlike a socialist program everyone gets a share regardless if they pay in or not and that is a big reason it fails because people don't want to work to support everyone else.

Think it through please.

Not true. Minors get benefits as do the disabled who have never paid a cent.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

Not true. Minors get benefits as do the disabled who have never paid a cent.  

The Basics About Disability Benefits

The Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) program pays benefits to you and certain family members if you are “insured,” meaning that you worked long enough – and recently enough - and paid Social Security taxes on your earnings. The Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program pays benefits to disabled adults and children who have limited income and resources.

While the Social Security and Supplemental Security Income disability programs are different, the medical requirements are the same. If you meet the non-medical requirement criteria, monthly benefits are paid if you have a medical condition that’s expected to last at least one year or result in death.

https://www.ssa.gov/benefits/disability/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

To get benefits, a child must have:A parent who’s disabled or retired and entitled to Social Security benefits; orA parent who died after having worked long enough in a job where they paid Social Security taxes.

https://www.ssa.gov/pubs/EN-05-10085.pdf

School's out!

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From Social Security’s website: Under a special rule, if you’ve worked for only one and one-half years in the three years just before your death, we can pay benefits to your children and your spouse who is caring for the children.

I know of a 20 year old guy who worked for a bit over 2 years and committed suicide.  His 3 year old kids were getting $300 per month each until they were 18.  Not equitable regardless of how you slice it but keep believing it’s not a government hand out in many instances.

I’m also fairly certain individuals born with severe illness like Down Syndrome who never work a day are still eligible but I don’t have firsthand knowledge of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, BaconHound said:

From Social Security’s website: Under a special rule, if you’ve worked for only one and one-half years in the three years just before your death, we can pay benefits to your children and your spouse who is caring for the children.

I know of a 20 year old guy who worked for a bit over 2 years and committed suicide.  His 3 year old kids were getting $300 per month each until they were 18.  Not equitable regardless of how you slice it but keep believing it’s not a government hand out in many instances.

I’m also fairly certain individuals born with severe illness like Down Syndrome who never work a day are still eligible but I don’t have firsthand knowledge of that.

The one point should be made - for example - special ed kids with legit disabilities can get SS. I think it's the classification, not that their parents had to have paid in.

   On rare? examples, kids have tried to be classified special ed, so they could qualify, when they most certainly did not. School psychologists had to determine the fakers.

But it isn't socialist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, calfoxwc said:

The one point should be made - for example - special ed kids with legit disabilities can get SS. I think it's the classification, not that their parents had to have paid in.

   On rare? examples, kids have tried to be classified special ed, so they could qualify, when they most certainly did not. School psychologists had to determine the fakers.

But it isn't socialist.

Exactly!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BaconHound said:

From Social Security’s website: Under a special rule, if you’ve worked for only one and one-half years in the three years just before your death, we can pay benefits to your children and your spouse who is caring for the children.

I know of a 20 year old guy who worked for a bit over 2 years and committed suicide.  His 3 year old kids were getting $300 per month each until they were 18.  Not equitable regardless of how you slice it but keep believing it’s not a government hand out in many instances.

I’m also fairly certain individuals born with severe illness like Down Syndrome who never work a day are still eligible but I don’t have firsthand knowledge of that.

And there you go CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS not everyone...NOT A SOCIALIST PROGRAM. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×