Current Events > Conservatives shook over the socialist winning in NY

(+) Yeah! (+)

If you want to guarantee the best life for the greatest number of people, in terms of access to healthcare/education/housing/opportunities...you really should be a conservative.

A real conservative, not like the spend-thrift fucks running the government right now. The tax cuts should've been coupled with deep spending cuts across the board, particularly in the areas with the most bloat. (Not just in entitlements, but even the military).

Government intervention in education/healthcare/etc has demonstrably made those things more expensive. Just this morning I was looking at properties in a decent area in Chicagoland. $130,000 price tag, $8700 property tax bill per year. It's unbelievable and insane and an example of how the politicians who peddle this same type of rhetoric have no idea how to do anything but spend and create bloated social programs that have the opposite effect.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
---

Antifar posted...

When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic and social wellness, at the end of the day. To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity.

Any actual socialist knows that's not what socialism fucking means.
---

Sephiroth1288 posted...

Antifar posted...

When we talk about the word socialism, I think what it really means is just democratic participation in our economic dignity, and our economic, social, and racial dignity. It is about direct representation and people actually having power and stake over their economic and social wellness, at the end of the day. To me, what socialism means is to guarantee a basic level of dignity.

Any actual socialist knows that's not what socialism fucking means.

She's probably still a socialist, she just wants to sell "free stuff!1111" to the uninformed people without having them think about it too much.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

She's probably still a socialist, she just wants to sell "free stuff!1111" to the uninformed people without having them think about it too much.

Yeah, she's like "Don't pay attention to encroaching government seizure of the private industry! Just focus on all the 'free' shit I'll give you!"
---

Imagine actually replying seriously to Mal or Proudclad.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Government intervention in education/healthcare/etc has demonstrably made those things more expensive.

Medicare is pretty cheap and grade school education is pretty cheap and so are state colleges, relative to private schools. I do agree that our regulatory system in regards to health care is a nightmare and needs to be fixed. Education's expense costs come from a few things: the NCAA/College Sports industry, the repeal of Glass Steagall, the textbook monopoly and a few more. Point is that tuition costs skyrocketed post-2000 and, in this case, it has to do with a lack of regulation.

Just this morning I was looking at properties in a decent area in Chicagoland. $130,000 price tag, $8700 property tax bill per year.

That has to do with your local and state politicians also, property taxes like that are also meant as a barrier to entry for some people, aka a way to somewhat control the residency that flocks there. Property tax is a thing in Texas too, though I know the rates aren't nearly that bad. I mean, if there were no tax on land, a lot of people would be land owners. Also, because land is a finite resource and a relatively valuable possession, of course it's gonna be taxed. Businesses get taxed, people get taxed, it's just something that happens.

What I don't get is how people think these programs are gonna perform just as well or better with less funding/tax revenue. I also don't get how people think that tax dollars don't benefit them. Much like with insurance, you pay it for the indirect benefits and potential need in the future, not because it's going to immediately be necessary, that is, unless you have a pre-existing condition and/or things happen like a loss of job or whatever requires a change in insurance.

While tax revenue and insurance premiums don't necessarily function the same way on the expenditure side, they do share the aspect that a pool of funds is created to be able to be spent on (whatever budgetary expenditures are present or on whatever medical costs the benefactors might incur). You don't necessarily get to use your insurance, despite paying into it and you don't necessarily reap the direct benefits of government expenditures just because you pay taxes, but that's only looking at instant gratification instead of the big picture.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Thats why the last recession happened under the super liberal president George W Bush right?

It's well established it was Clinton's deregulation policies that caused it.

Are you saying regulations are good?
---

New Yorkers are the ones that should be shook. It's their state that's going to be further ruined by socialists/communists.
---

Tyranthraxus posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Thats why the last recession happened under the super liberal president George W Bush right?

It's well established it was Clinton's deregulation policies that caused it.

Are you saying regulations are good?

That's not a static question, it all depends. Some are needed while others are bullshit.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

gunplagirl posted...

Sounds to me like you really want to see Americans suffer, care to talk about it?

I'm not the one peddling communism in 2018, buddy!

Capitalism has no place in a civilized society, even Steven hawking has said as much.

Er, what I meant to say was

I'm not your buddy, pal
---

voldothegr8 posted...

Tyranthraxus posted...

voldothegr8 posted...

Genocet_10-325 posted...

Thats why the last recession happened under the super liberal president George W Bush right?

It's well established it was Clinton's deregulation policies that caused it.

Are you saying regulations are good?

That's not a static question, it all depends. Some are needed while others are bullshit.

Gotcha. The regulations that democrats remove were needed and the regulations that republicans remove are bad.
---

Abyssea posted...

Once the baby boomers finally croak we'll be in the clear. They've been holding the rest of us back for far too long.

Nope. Every generation thinks their parents generation doesnt understand them and is holding them back. When you get much older and your kids are grown up, youll be arguing with them about how you dont think trans-racial is a legit thing and you dont feel comfortable with them marrying their sexbot with the creepy eyes. Theyll call you a bigot and wonder why you also cant accept the China-Russia Alliance that is soon to be the new world order.

(Those are speculative examples, but the point is that no generation escapes conflict with the previous ones and social and political standards change over time.)
---

PanzerElite posted...

Venezuela here we come

: (
---

Kineth posted...

Medicare is pretty cheap and grade school education is pretty cheap and so are state colleges, relative to private schools. I do agree that our regulatory system in regards to health care is a nightmare and needs to be fixed. Education's expense costs come from a few things: the NCAA/College Sports industry, the repeal of Glass Steagall, the textbook monopoly and a few more. Point is that tuition costs skyrocketed post-2000 and, in this case, it has to do with a lack of regulation.

Public education is expensive and really low quality. See: Chicago Public Schools.

Tuition has skyrocketed because the government guarantees the money.

Kineth posted...

That has to do with your local and state politicians also, property taxes like that are also meant as a barrier to entry for some people, aka a way to somewhat control the residency that flocks there. Property tax is a thing in Texas too, though I know the rates aren't nearly that bad. I mean, if there were no tax on land, a lot of people would be land owners. Also, because land is a finite resource and a relatively valuable possession, of course it's gonna be taxed. Businesses get taxed, people get taxed, it's just something that happens.

What I don't get is how people think these programs are gonna perform just as well or better with less funding/tax revenue. I also don't get how people think that tax dollars don't benefit them. Much like with insurance, you pay it for the indirect benefits and potential need in the future, not because it's going to immediately be necessary, that is, unless you have a pre-existing condition and/or things happen like a loss of job or whatever requires a change in insurance.

While tax revenue and insurance premiums don't necessarily function the same way on the expenditure side, they do share the aspect that a pool of funds is created to be able to be spent on (whatever budgetary expenditures are present or on whatever medical costs the benefactors might incur). You don't necessarily get to use your insurance, despite paying into it and you don't necessarily reap the direct benefits of government expenditures just because you pay taxes, but that's only looking at instant gratification instead of the big picture.

I didn't say that property tax should be abolished. Some amount of property tax is reasonable and necessary. All I'm saying is that government intervention at all levels (when there's too much of it) results in higher costs and higher taxes for no gain. The property tax situation in Illinois is an example of that.
---

FLUFFYGERM posted...

Kineth posted...

Medicare is pretty cheap and grade school education is pretty cheap and so are state colleges, relative to private schools. I do agree that our regulatory system in regards to health care is a nightmare and needs to be fixed. Education's expense costs come from a few things: the NCAA/College Sports industry, the repeal of Glass Steagall, the textbook monopoly and a few more. Point is that tuition costs skyrocketed post-2000 and, in this case, it has to do with a lack of regulation.

Public education is expensive and really low quality. See: Chicago Public Schools.

Tuition has skyrocketed because the government guarantees the money.

Generally, public education is pretty good suburban areas compared to urban areas and the school district I graduated from is a good example, but that had a lot to do with the quality of the honors programs as opposed to the general educational requirements. That's not very strong supporting evidence for your claim and I'd wager that paying tuition for school is a lot more expensive that paying taxes; in fact, tuition for general education is a barrier to entry, which would create another divide in quality based on funding, a problem that is already present. It should be no surprise that programs will be less likely to flourish or succeed if their funding is insufficient. Yes, there's clearly a problem, but it's faulty to assume that the present state of affairs is how something always was, is and will be and it is also faulty to not acknowledge the inputs that fostered said state of affairs.

I was talking about all colleges, not just state colleges; however, a lot of those tuition costs are going toward building stadiums, hiring coaches and athletic personnel in order to secure revenue based on the teams' performance. At the same time, the repeal of Glass-Steagall consolidated a lot of banking and lending firms and also loosened the restrictions on debt speculation and the profit there within.

I didn't say that property tax should be abolished. Some amount of property tax is reasonable and necessary. All I'm saying is that government intervention at all levels (when there's too much of it) results in higher costs and higher taxes for no gain. The property tax situation in Illinois is an example of that.

I'm saying that Illinois isn't an example of that and that's likely a tax that the city of Chicago or its county have levied and frankly, I think you should get over it. Property tax isn't there as some ploy to enable big government spending. It's the cost of doing business. The idea, that taxation, in and of itself, is a bad thing, is ludicrous when the point is having an efficient budget. Government regulations like price controls or antitrust regulations don't result in high costs, they do the opposite. And lack of regulation, when compared to the alternative, is more likely to lead to higher costs with consumer goods as opposed to commodities like education and health.
---

#Shook

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/jun/27/alexandria-ocasio-cortezs-socialism-makes-her-enem/
---

The DSA needs some cleaning up before they are viable, the problem is that in it's current state, few Democrats from anywhere outside of the coasts will vote for a full on DSA president that isn't Sanders. They have to get rid of the SJW for the most part but keep things like emphasis on the environment and instead of abolishing ICE, change the stance to reform.
---

Patty_Fleur posted...

Trump would have beaten any Democratic candidate. Stop fooling yourself.

I'll take "Things only dumb fucks say" for $200!
---

Hop103 posted...

and instead of abolishing ICE, change the stance to reform.

Why
---