Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

[Huckleberry 34756]

It's still not necessarily hypocrisy. One of the reasons that many people oppose pure capitalism is because they recognize that humans are greedy and selfish and that we require regulation or we will enrich ourselves and our immediate loved ones at the expense of huge segments of society if we got the chance. Being personally rich, even obscenely rich, and arguing that laws should be changed to spread that wealth out is not hypocritical. In fact in some cases those people are arguing for it because they have personal experience understanding that the super rich will only continue to get richer if left to their own devices. They understand that selfishness is a natural human trait and so it has to be reined in by society.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

27 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

I think there's a pretty obvious difference between the poor person who criticizes corporate structure and yet works for a corporation, or the political person who despises the system yet participates it, and -- for example -- a wealthy person criticizing the system by which he/she became wealthy.

The typical anti-corporate person who works for a corporation is working for that corporation because it is the only way to survive, and it is by exposure to that corporate system that their opinion is informed. By the same token, that person can work for change from within, as much as possible.

The same is true for someone who criticizes the very political system she participates in. By participating, she learns more about the system, and can try to effect as much good change as possible from within the system's limitations.

An extremely wealthy person opposing wealth inequality is not entirely in the same position. I'm not necessarily speaking about Tom Morello, because I don't know his politics in detail; I do think it's sufficient to say that being Socialist and being Communist are not entirely the same thing. But where this person's situation differs from my first example is that Morello is well past the "doing what one needs to do to survive" point.

All that said, there is something to the argument that the vast difference between the billionaires of the USA and the median household income can be opposed by a Tom Morello, because as wealthy as Morello is, he's still very much closer to the median than he is to the extreme wealth of the likes of Bill Gates, etc.

But even Bill Gates can criticize the system that allowed him to become wealthy without being a hypocrite which is the point of the cartoon.  A general can criticize out of control military spending while still using whatever budget he is given.  One can argue for raising taxes without first donating extra money to the IRS. Al Gore can push for energy efficiency laws even if he flies around guzzling gas in a private jet to promote it.

The right often seems to confuse an individual's actions within a forced societal construct with hypocrisy.  In the case of the cartoon individual, he has little choice but to participate in current society, and to continue collecting firewood even as the other guy owns the well, because paying that guy for water is the only way he is going to get something to drink.

 

[Rimbo 27100]

12 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

But even Bill Gates can criticize the system that allowed him to become wealthy without being a hypocrite which is the point of the cartoon.  A general can criticize out of control military spending while still using whatever budget he is given.  One can argue for raising taxes without first donating extra money to the IRS. Al Gore can push for energy efficiency laws even if he flies around guzzling gas in a private jet to promote it.

The right often seems to confuse an individual's actions within a forced societal construct with hypocrisy.  In the case of the cartoon individual, he has little choice but to participate in current society, and to continue collecting firewood even as the other guy owns the well, because paying that guy for water is the only way he is going to get something to drink.

 

You had a point there, until you used the phrase "the right." There is no such thing, any more than there is "the left." These are ridiculous oversimplifications of anything, the political equivalent of saying "Our product is better than Brand X."

Any time someone uses any such characterization, it's a red flag. Yeah, this means almost everyone in political discussions on the internet, which is why I usually don't engage.

The point of e.g. Bill Gates isn't merely that he got a lot of wealth, it's how he did it; the reason it's hypocritical for him to criticize the system he benefitted from is that he -- through chance -- became wealthy and powerful enough to influence the design of the system in the first place, and he did so for his own benefit.

Tom Morello, not so much. But Bill Gates? He absolutely did -- and wields that much influence even today.

[American Swindle 102]

1 hour ago, Huckleberry said:

It's still not necessarily hypocrisy. One of the reasons that many people oppose pure capitalism is because they recognize that humans are greedy and selfish and that we require regulation or we will enrich ourselves and our immediate loved ones at the expense of huge segments of society if we got the chance. Being personally rich, even obscenely rich, and arguing that laws should be changed to spread that wealth out is not hypocritical. In fact in some cases those people are arguing for it because they have personal experience understanding that the super rich will only continue to get richer if left to their own devices. They understand that selfishness is a natural human trait and so it has to be reined in by society.

Well I disagree with those people.  For every greedy self-made millionaire, there are other ones that are compassionate and choose to do good with their money without force.  Who will regulate your regulators?  

[FondrenRoad 4378]

4 minutes ago, Rimbo said:

You had a point there, until you used the phrase "the right." There is no such thing, any more than there is "the left." These are ridiculous oversimplifications of anything, the political equivalent of saying "Our product is better than Brand X."

Any time someone uses any such characterization, it's a red flag. Yeah, this means almost everyone in political discussions on the internet, which is why I usually don't engage.

The point of e.g. Bill Gates isn't merely that he got a lot of wealth, it's how he did it; the reason it's hypocritical for him to criticize the system he benefitted from is that he -- through chance -- became wealthy and powerful enough to influence the design of the system in the first place, and he did so for his own benefit.

Tom Morello, not so much. But Bill Gates? He absolutely did -- and wields that much influence even today.

First, I don't know what Bill Gates' politics are, but I do know he is one of the biggest philanthropists in history.  It wouldn't be surprising if he thought the US gov't should be doing the things that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does.  If he does support societal change that would negatively impact his income, it isn't hypocritical at all that he didn't first intentionally make less money or give it to the IRS.

And its never hypocritical to criticize a system you benefited from.  In fact, its far more beneficial to have someone who succeeded in a system critique it.  What you're missing in the cartoon is the guy with nothing to trade so he can't trade for water and is dying of thirst.  Of course, the guy with nothing would like for wood and water to be given to him.  His opinion is far less valuable than the opinion of someone with something to lose.  The guy with the wood would split his resources with all 3 of them, but he can only do that if the guy with the water does the same.

The right-left thing was an oversimplification.  In actuality, there are people who value individual wealth over societal wealth, and there are other people who value societal wealth over individual wealth. 

[Huckleberry 34756]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

And its never hypocritical to criticize a system you benefited from.  In fact, its far more beneficial to have someone who succeeded in a system critique it.  What you're missing in the cartoon is the guy with nothing to trade so he can't trade for water and is dying of thirst.  Of course, the guy with nothing would like for wood and water to be given to him.  His opinion is far less valuable than the opinion of someone with something to lose.  The guy with the wood would split his resources with all 3 of them, but he can only do that if the guy with the water does the same.

Reminds me of sports arguments.

Your team lost and you complain about clearly terrible officiating - "You're only complaining because you lost! Sore loser! Shut up!"

Your team won and you complain about clearly terrible officiating - "Why are you whining about the officiating?!?!? You won! Shut up!"

Well, sometimes the officiating fucking sucks and someone needs to say something so it doesn't suck as much in the future.

[Huckleberry 34756]

No, that's the idiotic position we talked about earlier which has already been thoroughly debunked by multiple people on this thread.

[Rimbo 27100]

34 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

First, I don't know what Bill Gates' politics are, but I do know he is one of the biggest philanthropists in history.  It wouldn't be surprising if he thought the US gov't should be doing the things that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation does.  If he does support societal change that would negatively impact his income, it isn't hypocritical at all that he didn't first intentionally make less money or give it to the IRS.

And its never hypocritical to criticize a system you benefited from.  In fact, its far more beneficial to have someone who succeeded in a system critique it.  What you're missing in the cartoon is the guy with nothing to trade so he can't trade for water and is dying of thirst.  Of course, the guy with nothing would like for wood and water to be given to him.  His opinion is far less valuable than the opinion of someone with something to lose.  The guy with the wood would split his resources with all 3 of them, but he can only do that if the guy with the water does the same.

The right-left thing was an oversimplification.  In actuality, there are people who value individual wealth over societal wealth, and there are other people who value societal wealth over individual wealth. 

My point is that Gates didn't merely benefit from the system, but he used his influence to shape it into what it is today. And that is what would make him criticizing the system hypocritical. 

Yes, today he is a philanthropist, largely because he has so much money there's not many other things he can buy, and he's not (or at least, no longer) the complete shithead we thought he was in the 90s.

All that said... even if he is being a hypocrite, that doesn't invalidate his criticism one bit, or make it wrong.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

13 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

The difference being in your analogy of sports, if you benefited from a bad call, you should be honest and give up your gains and gripe for the call to be overturned, if you are going to argue for excellency in officiating as the #1 motivating force.

You should give up your wealth in the system that directly gave you your extreme wealth if you are going to clamor a DSA-like change. Which by the way, nobody is doing...for that very reason. Wealthy people like their wealth, healthy people like their health costs, poor people like their fantasy where they are less poor because of the charity of others, etc.

The bad call analogy is wrong because its already a bad call.  An accurate comparison would be to call for a rule change while winning under the old rule.

Of course your second paragraph is entirely stupid.  The problem is that society is largely controlled by people who are dicks like you.  A DSA person can believe that everyone should have the basics.  They don't have to give away everything right now though because society continues to be run by dicks like you.  So even though they could help several homeless people with their 3 month cushion, they still need to keep their 3 month cushion because if they kept only enough of their income for basic expenses, as soon as they lost their job, they'd be homeless and uninsured too and that would be no help at all to the current homeless and uninsured.

[HenryJames 67511]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Of course your second paragraph is entirely stupid.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

An accurate comparison would be to call for a rule change while winning under the old rule.

This is what you say above. My only thought on this is that it seems to me that it would be black-and-white hypocrisy to call for a rule change while winning under the old rule and yet still endeavor to keep the points you gained that were directly benefited by the old rule. True integrity and belief and mission, again it would seem to me and I'm only speaking for myself here, would be to give up the gains from the old rule you have come to think is unfair. That basis is why I am for things like affirmative action and fair housing and other things that represent reparation for a people who were wronged by a people who benefited under something they came to know was wrong.

So an NBA player who believes that the NBA should have a trapezoid key like the international game should quit playing in the NBA until it happens?  Coaches who run zone defense in the NBA now should vacate all their wins from before zone became legal?  And college football kickoff rules change all the time to increase player safety.  This year, fair catches inside the 25 yard line will result in a touchback.  I guess all those hypocrite kick returners from yesteryear who think its a good rule should have their kickoff stats wiped out.

[bad_teammate 13569]

1 hour ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

You should give up your wealth in the system that directly gave you your extreme wealth if you are going to clamor a DSA-like change. Which by the way, nobody is doing...for that very reason. Wealthy people like their wealth, healthy people like their health costs, poor people like their fantasy where they are less poor because of the charity of others, etc.

This is the intellectual level of Megan McCain furiously ranting on The View.

One rich person giving up his or her wealth is entirely meaningless in terms of larger social change.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

2 hours ago, Huckleberry said:

Reminds me of sports arguments.

Your team lost and you complain about clearly terrible officiating - "You're only complaining because you lost! Sore loser! Shut up!"

Your team won and you complain about clearly terrible officiating - "Why are you whining about the officiating?!?!? You won! Shut up!"

Well, sometimes the officiating fucking sucks and someone needs to say something so it doesn't suck as much in the future.

HEY HEY HEY !!!!  Can we keep the damned sports out of the CR here !!!    Analogies or not ......

[bad_teammate 13569]

There is power in a factory, power in the land
Power in the hands of a worker
But it all amounts to nothing if together we don't stand
There is power in a union

 

Now the lessons of the past were all learned with workers' blood
The mistakes of the bosses we must pay for
From the cities and the farmlands to trenches full of mud
War has always been the bosses' way, sir

 

The Union forever defending our rights
Down with the blackleg, all workers unite
With our brothers and our sisters from many far off lands
There is power in a union

 

Americans seeing the power of organized labor activity.
 

So awesome.

Edited August 2, 2018 by bad_teammate

[this 107]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

This is the intellectual level of Megan McCain furiously ranting on The View.

 

LOL. That is exactly what your entire DSA movement sounds like. Its as if for them, 1+1 isn't = 2 but free pizza and beer with someone else's money! 

23 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

One rich person giving up his or her wealth is entirely meaningless in terms of larger social change.

 Allow me to do some basic math for you:

Let's assume that not just one rich person is giving up his or her wealth(as in liquidating it which would have downstream wealth erosion due to the massive amount of influx of assets into the market, but for shits and giggles let's assume erosion doesn't occur and asset prices hold), but every American, Chinese, Indian and any other billionaire around world not just taxed but giving up every single penny they have tomorrow, August 2nd 2018. 

Total net worth: $9.1 trillion dollars.

Current US 2019 budget:  $4.4 trillion

US 2019 budget with universal healthcare, free college education, homes for all, post homeless shelter care, post homeless shelter, job placement, UBI etc.: $9 trillion?

Fuck it, let's keep the budget to be the same at $4.4 trillion.

We will run out of that money in 2 years, then what?

Go after wealth of every single millionaire(who are basically thousandaires now due to wealth erosion that occurred as discussed above)? Another 5 years, then? 

Go after the wealth of every single hundred thousandaire(<-- this is so inconsequential that it isn't even a word)? You get it... I hope.

But but but all the spending will have to have some economic benefits no? It will have secondary economic growth but not enough to create value at preceding levels.

Your whole movement is based on "tax the rich MOAR!!!" Without taking into account that its economically and financially  unfeasible down the road.

[dcar00 15005]

3 hours ago, American Swindle said:

Well I disagree with those people.  For every greedy self-made millionaire, there are other ones that are compassionate and choose to do good with their money without force.  Who will regulate your regulators?  

Warren G.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

19 minutes ago, this said:

LOL. That is exactly what your entire DSA movement sounds like. Its as if for them, 1+1 isn't = 2 but free pizza and beer with someone else's money! 

 Allow me to do some basic math for you:

Let's assume that not just one rich person is giving up his or her wealth(as in liquidating it which would have downstream wealth erosion due to the massive amount of influx of assets into the market, but for shits and giggles let's assume erosion doesn't occur and asset prices hold), but every American, Chinese, Indian and any other billionaire around world not just taxed but giving up every single penny they have tomorrow, August 2nd 2018. 

Total net worth: $9.1 trillion dollars.

Current US 2019 budget:  $4.4 trillion

US 2019 budget with universal healthcare, free college education, homes for all, post homeless shelter care, post homeless shelter, job placement, UBI etc.: $9 trillion?

Fuck it, let's keep the budget to be the same at $4.4 trillion.

We will run out of that money in 2 years, then what?

Go after wealth of every single millionaire(who are basically thousandaires now due to wealth erosion that occurred as discussed above)? Another 5 years, then? 

Go after the wealth of every single hundred thousandaire(<-- this is so inconsequential that it isn't even a word)? You get it... I hope.

But but but all the spending will have to have some economic benefits no? It will have secondary economic growth but not enough to create value at preceding levels.

Your whole movement is based on "tax the rich MOAR!!!" Without taking into account that its economically and financially  unfeasible down the road.

First, who said anything about going after static wealth?  Income is produced all the time.  Food is produced all the time.  If you want to take a man's fish, you don't take his fishing rod.

Second, who said anything about only billionaires, or even only individuals?  Google, Microsoft, and Apple have almost $500 billion cash on hand right now.  That's just 3 companies.  Tell me, which billionaire individual in your bullshit equation here did you attribute that to?

The idea that we don't have the money to feed all Americans and make our healthcare system more just and efficient is a stupid one.  And you know why?  Because we already feed most Americans and give most Americans access to healthcare via the most expensive channels possible.  Even GMU's supposedly "damning" report acknowledged that overall healthcare spending would be lower with a universal system.  Lets not pretend that the money doesn't exist when we already spend more than whats needed to implement these plans.

On top of that, we often keep crop prices up by having farmers destroy crops.  Yet we can't make sure everyone is fed?  Right.  We actually produce enough food to feed the entire world right now.  We destroy some and we waste even more.

Edited August 2, 2018 by FondrenRoad

[this 107]

51 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

First, who said anything about going after static wealth?  Income is produced all the time.  Food is produced all the time.  If you want to take a man's fish, you don't take his fishing rod.

Second, who said anything about only billionaires, or even only individuals?  Google, Microsoft, and Apple have almost $500 billion cash on hand right now.  That's just 3 companies.  Tell me, which billionaire individual in your bullshit equation here did you attribute that to?

The idea that we don't have the money to feed all Americans and make our healthcare system more just and efficient is a stupid one.  And you know why?  Because we already feed most Americans and give most Americans access to healthcare via the most expensive channels possible.  Even GMU's supposedly "damning" report acknowledged that overall healthcare spending would be lower with a universal system.  Lets not pretend that the money doesn't exist when we already spend more than whats needed to implement these plans.

On top of that, we often keep crop prices up by having farmers destroy crops.  Yet we can't make sure everyone is fed?  Right.  We actually produce enough food to feed the entire world right now.  We destroy some and we waste even more.

Fine, why don't we add cash held by every single corporation in the S & P 500 and add it to 9.1 trillion(held by ALL the billionaires of the world) + $1.9 trillion = $12 trillion.

Source: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/07/19/us-corporate-cash-pile-1-84-million-says-moodys-doesnt-matter-a-darn-not-even-apples-stash/#73ff4d293374

Work the math based on that, it doesn't work for ALL the things you want such as UBI, universal healthcare, free college education on top what we already spend at $4.4 trillion. So even with an addition of another $2 trillion to our yearly budget it exhausts everything we have in 2 years. And the govt is known to function under budget all the time, are they not? LOL. 

I agree with you that we have the money to feed all Americans(even before raising taxes), we have the money to house all Americans(as long as they're willing) but we DO NOT have the money for all the other things DSAs are asking for. 

Some of the issues we face(that YOU highlighted so eloquently in your earlier posts) tells you that housing the homeless isn't a budget issue but a social issue at times due to their unwillingness for whatever reason. Despite wording it in many many different ways, badteammate refused to acknowledge because he thinks throwing money at problems solves all the problems. The problem is, as the above post illustrates, we don't have enough of it.

Edited August 2, 2018 by this

[Skyline 325]

Here is the full Bors comic for those interested:

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, this said:

Fine, why don't we add cash held by every single corporation in the S & P 500 and add it to 9.1 trillion(held by ALL the billionaires of the world) + $1.92 trillion = $12 trillion.

Source: https://www.spglobal.com/our-insights/US-Corporate-Cash-Reaches-19-Trillion-But-Rising-Debt-and-Tax-Reform-Pose-Risk.html

Work the math based on that, it doesn't work for ALL the things you want such as UBI, universal healthcare, free college education on top what we already spend at $4.4 trillion. So even with an addition of another $2 trillion to our yearly budget it exhausts everything we have in 2 years. And the govt is known to function under budget all the time, are they not? LOL. 

I agree with you that we have the money to feed all Americans(even before raising taxes), we have the money to house all Americans(as long as they're willing) but we DO NOT have the money for all the other things DSAs are asking for. 

Some of the issues we face(that YOU highlighted so eloquently in your earlier posts) tells you that housing the homeless isn't a budget issue but a social issue at times due to their unwillingness for whatever reason. Despite wording it in many many different ways, badteammate refused to acknowledge because he thinks throwing money at problems solves all the problems. The problem is, as the above post illustrates, we don't have enough of it.

Why would it be on top of what we already spend? It replaces SS, Medicare, and welfare spending outright. We can afford all of it, although UBI negates the need for some of the DSA platform. The issue is really that you dont want it.

[this 107]

8 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

Why would it be on top of what we already spend? It replaces SS, Medicare, and welfare spending outright. We can afford all of it, although UBI negates the need for some of the DSA platform. The issue is really that you dont want it.

No we cannot. I did the math for you for the case I'm making that we cannot afford it. Why dont you show how much you think will cost for universal healthcare, UBI etc. by replacing SS, Medicare, etc and how you plan on funding it. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

5 minutes ago, this said:

No we cannot. I did the math for you for the case I'm making that we cannot afford it. Why dont you show how much you think will cost for universal healthcare, UBI etc. by replacing SS, Medicare, etc and how you plan on funding it. 

I already did the UBI math. Go back and read it.  As for healthcare, you can even use the Koch's numbers.  We can afford it.  In fact, there isnt much that DSAs want that we arent already grudgingly paying for through the most expensive channels possible.   

Furthermore, even my numbers dont factor in the fact that all UBI will be income for someone else. Housing voucher is income for the landlord. Food voucher pays the grocer and farmer. Clothing voucher pays clothing retailers. It's all money used, not money hidden or destroyed. 

You're even disingenuous about free college. You still need to be academically accepted to attend. And the economy is already "paying" for it in some way. Nobody is calling for the amount of seats to be doubled. At most, you add more community college spots which are relatively affordable. 

[Incredulity 11885]

The good old Keynesian Multiplier.

[this 107]

10 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

I already did the UBI math. Go back and read it.  As for healthcare, you can even use the Koch's numbers.  We can afford it.  In fact, there isnt much that DSAs want that we arent already grudgingly paying for through the most expensive channels possible.   

Furthermore, even my numbers dont factor in the fact that all UBI will be income for someone else. Housing voucher is income for the landlord. Food voucher pays the grocer and farmer. Clothing voucher pays clothing retailers. It's all money used, not money hidden or destroyed. 

You're even disingenuous about free college. You still need to be academically accepted to attend. And the economy is already "paying" for it in some way. Nobody is calling for the amount of seats to be doubled. At most, you add more community college spots which are relatively affordable. 

No you're disingenuously claiming that UBI and free universal healthcare will replace SS, medicare and we can afford it all. You throwing a number around for UBI does not work for a budget. 

We spent $1.25 trillion in SS in 2015

We spent $985 billion on medicare in 2015

Now how much would your UBI cost and replace what part of our spending? How much would free healthcare cost and what and how would it raise or decrease our medicare spending? Keep in mind, the number of people on healthcare will increase substantially. 

[David Dennison 19574]

12 minutes ago, this said:

No you're disingenuously claiming that UBI and free universal healthcare will replace SS, medicare and we can afford it all. You throwing a number around for UBI does not work for a budget. 

We spent $1.25 trillion in SS in 2015

We spent $985 billion on medicare in 2015

Now how much would your UBI cost and replace what part of our spending? How much would free healthcare cost and what and how would it raise or decrease our medicare spending? Keep in mind, the number of people on healthcare will increase substantially. 

Super liberal website reporting on the Koch study about Medicare for all.

[FondrenRoad 4378]

10 minutes ago, this said:

No you're disingenuously claiming that UBI and free universal healthcare will replace SS, medicare and we can afford it all. You throwing a number around for UBI does not work for a budget. 

We spent $1.25 trillion in SS in 2015

We spent $985 billion on medicare in 2015

Now how much would your UBI cost and replace what part of our spending? How much would free healthcare cost and what and how would it raise or decrease our medicare spending? Keep in mind, the number of people on healthcare will increase substantially. 

All the numbers on ubi are there, slugger.  Raise the ubi budget if you want. You can double my numbers and we can still afford it.  The point is that it replaces welfare and ss.  You dont need to pay for poor and old people's necessities twice. 

And now you're here arguing that Medicare, as we know it now, wont be completely replaced by universal healthcare. Right, old people will have 2 federal insurers. Come on man.  Try being a real person in this discussion. And more people will be using cheaper healthcare entry points. They already used the ER.  Plus "free" and universal arent interchangeable. Nobody suggested that there wont be income weighted premiums and copays. 

[Incredulity 11885]

So, is Social Security, “in a lockbox” or insolvent?

[this 107]

6 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

All the numbers on ubi are there, slugger.  Raise the ubi budget if you want. You can double my numbers and we can still afford it.  The point is that it replaces welfare and ss.  You dont need to pay for poor and old people's necessities twice. 

And now you're here arguing that Medicare, as we know it now, wont be completely replaced by universal healthcare. Right, old people will have 2 federal insurers. Come on man.  Try being a real person in this discussion. And more people will be using cheaper healthcare entry points. They already used the ER.  Plus "free" and universal arent interchangeable. Nobody suggested that there wont be income weighted premiums and copays. 

I'm gonna have to go through first 18 pages to find your UBI numbers, go ahead and do me a solid chief. Just repost them, will ya? 

And where did I say anything about it not replacing the old system? That is exactly what I'm hoping it would do, but I'm asking by how much? So why not stop playing these games? 

Fill this out for me:

 

Total tax revenue collected: _____________

Total Medicare spending: _____________

Total UBI spending: ____________________

Whatever else Fondren feels spending: __________________

Existent non discretionary spending: _______________________

[FondrenRoad 4378]

11 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Super liberal website reporting on the Koch study about Medicare for all.

No man. We cant afford to spend 100 billion less per year than we do now. Let's just ignore that, take the estimated cost without comparison to today's cost and multiply it by 10 so the number looks really big. Nobody will ever do the same with current numbers and catch us in the act. 

It works with everything. Over the next 1000 years, Americans will spend 80 trillion dollars on bananas. We just cant afford bananas for everyone right now. 

[bad_teammate 13569]

25 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Buying an old rolls royce that doesnt come with seatbelts because you are mega loaded and driving an exotic car yet waxing philosophical about cars should have seatbelts (if that is what is happening in that comic) is hypocritical, obviously.

How did you not notice the obvious moving backwards through time?

2 slow 4 cartoons

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Black guys didn't own rolls royces in the robber baron days. This looks like a contemporary black guy with an awesome car.

jack johnson says, "Fuck you, honkey"

Quote

If this half-baked attempt at art is genius and poignant and encapsulates entire points to you then I have some shitty art that the guy in Me, Myself and Irene painted to sell you for a lot of money.

you're mad because you couldn't read a cartoon

It's not genius, it's just funny. For those of us who are literate, it makes a pithy point about idiots who think they're smart and display a complete inability to understand context when trying to own the libs. Which you did (and do) in your basic misunderstanding of the form.

[Incredulity 11885]

7 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

jack johnson says, "Fuck you, honkey"

you're mad because you couldn't read a cartoon

It's not genius, it's just funny. For those of us who are literate, it makes a pithy point about idiots who think they're smart and display a complete inability to understand context when trying to own the libs. Which you did (and do) in your basic misunderstanding of the form.

You really love you some you.

[Zonahorn 8079]

5 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You really love you some you.

Oh, the irony.

[Incredulity 11885]

6 minutes ago, Calihorn said:

Oh, the irony.

Go home Alanis 

[bad_teammate 13569]

26 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Am i taking crazy pills and am I the only one who doesn't think it's okay to bitch and moan about APPL while literally texting/consuming as much APPL crap as you can?

- You're not taking crazy pills.

- You're not the only one.

Literally half of the Earth's population is dumber than average.

You know how kids say, "If you love that so much, why don't you marry it!?"

Your position is the opposite side of that coin and has as much intellectual depth and it's already been explained to you, patiently and at length by people nicer than me.

Do you like to eat food? Do you also dislike gov't subsidies for certain foods? Do you dislike some farming practices? Do you dislike some animal husbandry and slaughter practices? Do you still eat food? Do you check the sourcing on all of it? Do you refuse to drive on roads until the gov't balances the budget?

26 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

You really love you some you.

It's true.

[this 107]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Super liberal website reporting on the Koch study about Medicare for all.

 

1 hour ago, FondrenRoad said:

No man. We cant afford to spend 100 billion less per year than we do now. Let's just ignore that, take the estimated cost without comparison to today's cost and multiply it by 10 so the number looks really big. Nobody will ever do the same with current numbers and catch us in the act. 

It works with everything. Over the next 1000 years, Americans will spend 80 trillion dollars on bananas. We just cant afford bananas for everyone right now. 

Neither one of you read the study did you? Just ran with Bernie tweet? LOL, you DSAs crack me up.

Page 18: At the same time, more generous healthcare insurance would be provided to everyone at the expense of healthcare providers, who would face reimbursements substantially below their service costs. As noted previously, whether providers could sustain such losses and remain in operation, and how those who continue operations would adapt to such dramatic payment reductions, are critically important questions. While these estimates show little net change in NHE, the same cannot be said of the projected effects on the federal budget. Table 2 includes an estimate for the net increase in federal health budget commitments of $32.6 trillion from 2022 through 2031, which, by itself, is more than all federal individual and corporate income taxes projected to be collected during that 46 Again, the assumption of public financing is retained throughout this study pursuant to the language of the M4A bill text. International experience has been that private financing often retains a substantial role. See Thomson, Foubister, and Mossialos, Financing Healthcare in the European Union. 19 time period.47

 

So in summation the cost stays below what it is today as long as we work healthcare providers i.e. the doctors offices at a loss. I'm sure the best and brightest are going to line up to go to school for another 12 years on average AFTER high school working at a minimum of 80 hours/week to become doctors once they find out that they'll be paid roughly at the same wage as someone who graduated high school. 

Its a good thing neither the two of you, nor your messiahs who have a difficult time putting 1 and 1 together are in power. So uh, back to square one again. The costs are going to be what you stated fondren, about 10 times what they are today. 

[bad_teammate 13569]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I think we are just fundamentally different in how/what we believe and how we engage those beliefs as we live.

We might be different in what we believe, but we are the same in how we engage. Neither you nor I practice purely ethical consumption habits. Do not pretend you do.

[Incredulity 11885]

What the fuck are, “ethical consumption habits”?

 

Give me a minute or two, gonna need some Advil.

[David Dennison 19574]

13 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What the fuck are, “ethical consumption habits”?

 

Give me a minute or two, gonna need some Advil.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_consumerism

[bad_teammate 13569]

17 minutes ago, Incredulity said:

What the fuck are, “ethical consumption habits”?

The very stupid neoliberal idea that the way to enact changes, whether social or economic, is by spending or not spending money.

Which, of course, is something thought of as effective and meaningful by the bourgeoisie, the class that actually has money.

[edit]

Meanwhile, protests (online and offline) are actually extremely effective regardless of the ethical consumption of the participants.

Edited August 3, 2018 by bad_teammate

[bad_teammate 13569]

19 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Are they?

Yes, they are. Corporations change policies all the time in response to vocal consumer outrage. Are you being fatuous?

Quote

Im not any more of an ethical consumer than you or anyone else based on your ideals. I’m sure I buy things made by children or whatever without knowing it. That’s not my point. My point is that if you don’t take the action to separate yourself from an inelastic good or luxury despite crying your heart out about how unfair life is or that the companies are too rich or whatever, then it’s a stupid person who deserves neither respect nor consideration.

If you own a smartphone, or virtually any technology at all, you are utilizing either entire products made by children/slaves or products with pieces made by children/slaves. If you buy gasoline, it might come from states that will use that money to pay terrorists. You know that when you throw away computers or smartphones that kids in the third world break down the pieces in conditions that give them terrible diseases. And on and on and on.

You know this, but you do it anyway.

Maybe you genuinely go through your life completely oblivious to the world around you, and your complete ignorance to how basic shit works is your shield. But that's no virtue.

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

But slackatisvm is virtuous because at least it's...something?

I never said it is virtuous, merely that it is very often effective, which is true.

Quote

Makes sense if you believe the net result isn't a net negative of having a bunch of hipster doofus lazy weirdos very obviously act hypocritically.

This is the crux of your objection; you just don't like the people. Just stick to the cultural argument that you dislike a certain generation/class of people. Don't try to muddy it up with reason, because you suck at that.

Quote

I'm not sure tweeting about how Apple sucks from your Xphone, in that one example, is a net positive if it turns people off on the personalities that do that.

None of them know who you are or give a shit about your feelings, so don't worry.

[Anastasis 23721]

24 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Yes, they are. Corporations change policies all the time in response to vocal consumer outrage. Are you being fatuous?

 

[bad_teammate 13569]

4 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

It's effective? Okay if you say so, sure.

How many racists blasted online in social media have gotten fired? How did Starbucks react to the social media outrage following incident with the two black guys confronted by police? And on and on and on. You're seriously doubting that protest works?

Quote

The crux isn't that I don't like the people, it's that the effectiveness is blunted and is not something people want to get behind and follow, because it rings hollow, shallow and juvenile.

Some people DO want to get behind it, obviously. What you mean to say is, "... and is not something I want to get behind and follow, because it rings hollow, shallow and juvenile."

You're looking at social media movements where thousands, tens of thousands, even HUNDREDS of thousands of people join together in very lazy protest and are saying that "people" don't want to get behind it.

Quote

Adults generally don't give a lot of credence to those qualities. Though I will say the amount of people who follow Bernie and Trump make me think otherwise.

Adults get on the Internet, fail to decipher basic cartoons, and make very shitty political analyses.

[bad_teammate 13569]

Do you think Fred could've figured out what that cartoon meant without like 10 people explaining it to him?

[EMAWesome 101]

For a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the last 300 or so posts have been about everything except Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

[thrillhammer 686]

4 hours ago, EMAWesome said:

For a thread about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez the last 300 or so posts have been about everything except Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

welcome to surly

[bad_teammate 13569]

AOC is cool. It's cool and good that she's going across the nation to build the DSA roster of candidates from all areas, small and large. It's cool and good that she's using her newfound celebrity to spread a message of popular economic fairness in the areas the Dems traditionally neglect.

I like her. She's good.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

She’s coming after your kids!  Look out republicans!

[ChickenSandwich 9999]

2 hours ago, bad_teammate said:

AOC is cool. It's cool and good that she's going across the nation to build the DSA roster of candidates from all areas, small and large. It's cool and good that she's using her newfound celebrity to spread a message of popular economic fairness in the areas the Dems traditionally neglect.

I like her. She's good.

Yup. Good representative. Grew up in a Socialist house hold where her parents wealth and resources were redistributed to her. Has never held a real job or been financially independent. 

Now wants to spread the joys of the socialism she was raised on by having the rest of the country live off her parents too (ie the government )

Avoiding responsibility, what’s not to love. 

Rock the vote!