American Politics

[JustTK]

JustTK, I took the test and fall square in the middle of the bottom right quadrant, meaning socially liberal and economically to the "right". I believe only a few percent of Americans fall in the same quadrant. Most people want government to run other peoples' lives.

(I am bottom-left quadrant.).

Interesting how you feel about your fellow countrymen. It would be interesting to see some stats on this. My hunch would be that they are right wing and close to centre on liberal-authoritarian axis.

If you are correct, then that would speak volumes about your so-called democracy. Bcos then the government would not be representing the people's interests. How surprising is that! Hehe.

[JustTK]

JustTK's probably referring to the Americas, specifically Latin America.

Right. He didn't mention USA.

[Tiny 12]

Just from looking at the changes in the tax tables after the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) I could tell the TCJA made our tax system more progressive -- see Tables 1 and 2, here:

https://taxfoundation.org/final-tax-...ails-analysis/

But Democrats could argue the tax tables alone don't take into account the effects of the Qualified Business Income deduction and some other changes to the tax code implemented by the TCJA, which preferentially benefitted higher income earners.

Well, Justin Haskins figured out a nifty way around this problem. He simply compared the percentage change in average federal income taxes paid by filers in various income groups before (2017) and after (2018) the TCJA. You can see the results in the last column in Table 1, on page 3, here:

https://heartland.org/wp-content/upl...cy%20Paper.pdf

The results are striking. Tax returns showing income in the range of $1 to $20,000 saw income taxes reduced by 27% to 88%. Those filers making from $20,000 to $100,000 paid 15% to 21% less tax. Taxpayers in the $100,000 to $500,000 brackets paid 11% to 13% less. And those making in excess of $500,000 paid only 3% to 9% less.

So when you hear someone say that the Republican tax cuts just helped the better off and didn't do jack for the workingman, realize he's full of it.

[Tiny 12]

Have you ever taken the political compass test? Give it a go. It is pretty interesting, and also you will learn smthg - https://www.politicalcompass.org/test.

JustTK, I took the test and fall square in the middle of the bottom right quadrant, meaning socially liberal and economically to the "right". I believe only a few percent of Americans fall in the same quadrant. Most people want government to run other peoples' lives. They're all for picking peoples' pockets and / or legislating what they can do with their bodies. Just as you and I believe the USA government shouldn't dictate to other countries what they can do, so I believe the U.S. government shouldn't dictate to me what I can and can't do, without good reason.

Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. I have told you this before. Likewise you do not understand what capitalism private ownership of the means of production. Size of govt, rule of law, open markets these are irrelevant to what capitalism is. Open markets can function well under socialism. I explained this to you before. "regulatory efficiency" I dunno what this means.

"Capitalism rewards the hardest working and savviest" I could not disagree with any stronger. It most certainly does not. It rewards the wealthy and the most selfish and ruthless. That much is clear from fundamentals. And there are plenty of rewards for hard work under socialism too.

Can you name a single socialist country in Europe or the Americas that prospered? I can't think of a single one. I can think of a number that are or were basket cases, including.

The Soviet Union

Poland

Czechoslovakia

Hungary

Romania

Bulgaria

Yugoslavia

Venezuela

Cuba

Nicaragua

Bolivia

Again Elvis, you clearly need to do some research in to what socialism is You have bought in to the US govt propaganda lie that it is some murderous dictatorial plot to remove everyone's freedoms and happiness. And the examples you give are all of authoritarian social democracies (I. E. 'bad' capitalist countries). Try reading this for starters:

https://www.socialism101.com/basic

The section on "the right to food and water" is a hoot. How many people have died of starvation because of "worker ownership of the means of production"? Certainly tens of millions, maybe hundreds. Notable examples include famines in Cambodia (1979), the Ukrainian SSR (1932-1934), North Korea (1995-1999), The Soviet Union (1921-1922), and China (1958-1962). There are examples where collectivization of agriculture turned out badly, in countries that you wouldn't necessarily classify as "socialist. " Mexico and Zimbabwe come to mind.

[Tiny 12]

In USA just in one county by Las Vegas?

JustTK's probably referring to the Americas, specifically Latin America.

[LivingFossil]

Paid sex is legal in many parts of America. Just head to the south.

In USA just in one county by Las Vegas?

[JustTK]

If you are running for president I don't care what are your other issues if you support making it legal in America and unlocking Americas greatness then I will vote for you.
Traveling for sex outside of America sucks, but America is an amazing country!

Paid sex is legal in many parts of America. Just head to the south.

[LivingFossil]

If you are running for president I don't care what are your other issues if you support making it legal in America and unlocking Americas greatness then I will vote for you.

Who or when is this going to happen?

Traveling for sex outside of America sucks, but America is an amazing country!

[JustTK]

LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? It is when government controls all resources and doles it out as it sees fit.

The hallmarks of capitalism are rule of law, private ownership, small but essential government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. Capitalism facilitates growth but rewards the hardest working and savviest.

With socialist nations, they will turn to captialism when they need money. Both Russia and China did this, but the culture is what it is. Both went from rule of law and free elections to dictator for life who can change law at any whim. Venezuela did this with Chavez as well.

Saying Hitler was not socialist is hilarious. He was a dictator and took whatever he wanted and doled out resources as he wished. An interesting question for socialists is if you take away the racism and war mongering, what did the Nazis do that you objected to? The reality is very little.

Yeah, I am going to back off on that now. Peter Zeihan mentioned this about the USA navy and global trade.

Firstly, great to hear you have realized there is no hidden treasure in your pirate story.

Now, on to the more interesting and significant matter of your ignorance of socialism. It is very clear from your comments that you have no idea what socialism is. I am not surprised. It is intentional BS propaganda that you have bought in to from your leaders, deliberate misinformation designed so that you will hate the idea of socialism. It has been a deliberate USA policy since the 1940's and 50's.

Have you ever taken the political compass test? Give it a go. It is pretty interesting, and also you will learn smthg - https://www.politicalcompass.org/test.

A political position is a combination of 2 positions you have a position on the horiz axis and on the vert axis. Horiz is left / right views, vert axis is authoritarian / libertarian. Hence you will learn that authoritarianism has nothing to do with socialism. A govt can be equally authoritarian or libertarian both to the left and to the right. So your comments about dictatorships and socialism are just garbage. Have you never heard of anarcho-socialism? It's a form of socialism without any government control. Examples of right wing dictatorships : Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Estado Novo, Francoist Spain, various governments in Colombia, Chile, Brazil since WW2.

Socialism is the worker ownership of the means of production. I have told you this before. Likewise you do not understand what capitalism private ownership of the means of production. Size of govt, rule of law, open markets these are irrelevant to what capitalism is. Open markets can function well under socialism. I explained this to you before. "regulatory efficiency" I dunno what this means.

"Capitalism rewards the hardest working and savviest" I could not disagree with any stronger. It most certainly does not. It rewards the wealthy and the most selfish and ruthless. That much is clear from fundamentals. And there are plenty of rewards for hard work under socialism too.

Hitler I answered this in my prev comments. You clearly didn't read what I wrote. Hitler privatized several industries, murdered and incarcerated socialists. Nearly every action he took was UN-socialist. https://www.abc.net.au/religion/nazi...story/10214302.

Again Elvis, you clearly need to do some research in to what socialism is You have bought in to the US govt propaganda lie that it is some murderous dictatorial plot to remove everyone's freedoms and happiness. And the examples you give are all of authoritarian social democracies (I. E. 'bad' capitalist countries). Try reading this for starters:

https://www.socialism101.com/basic

[CheckMate1]

Yeah, you don't:

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference...cialism-195448#text=The%20 main%20 difference%20 is%20 that, by%20 a%20 democratically%2 Delected%20 government.

Thanks, JC.

[John Clayton]

LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? ...

Yeah, you don't:

https://www.thoughtco.com/difference...cialism-195448#text=The%20 main%20 difference%20 is%20 that, by%20 a%20 democratically%2 Delected%20 government.

[EihTooms]

This guy obviously engages in the same kind of research to arrive at his conclusions as every other Repub and pro Repub Bothsider / Neithersider. He might indeed be 3-4 of the Dem-bashing posters here using different nics:

https://twitter.com/ricswartzlander/...595676674?s=20

[Elvis 2008]

Elvis, why are you so vehemently against an ideology when you so clearly know nothing about it?

LOL. You think I do not know what socialism is? It is when government controls all resources and doles it out as it sees fit.

The hallmarks of capitalism are rule of law, private ownership, small but essential government, regulatory efficiency, and open markets. If you allow these principles to flourish, economic wealth will follow. However, the growth will be uneven. Capitalism facilitates growth but rewards the hardest working and savviest. Socialism strives for equality.

The goal of capitalism is the government as referee, and the problem today is those with money far too often are paying the referee off which is crony capitalism. Slapping ESG scores on business was the equivalent of asking companies: How pro-Democratic party are you? It is this intermingling of corporation and government that bothers me the most. SCOTUS also made a huge mistake with its Citizens United decision allowing corporations more power than individuals in an election.

With socialist nations, they will turn to captialism when they need money. Both Russia and China did this, but the culture is what it is. Both went from rule of law and free elections to dictator for life who can change law at any whim. Venezuela did this with Chavez as well. Once this happens, decline is inevitable. Companies care less about pleasing their customers and more about pleasing their leaders. It can be leftist or right wing. Socialism is whatever the leader wants. It is government control of resources.

Saying Hitler was not socialist is hilarious. He was a dictator and took whatever he wanted and doled out resources as he wished. True, there was more private ownership in Nazi Germany than in Stalin's USSR but the reason for that was for Hitler's financial benefit. Hitler passed laws called enabling laws that made him a dictator. Hugo Chavez copied Hilter on this BTW. Corporations knew who they served.

An interesting question for socialists is if you take away the racism and war mongering, what did the Nazis do that you objected to? The reality is very little.

As for your piracy section that was so nave it was almost sweet. A short video clip made by and for the promotion of the US Navy. No bias there, right? And the video itself explains that there is only piracy and naval action off the coast of Somalia, not worldwide. And the area is monitored by coalition forces, not just the US Navy. So your totally wrong on every conceivable point, Elvis. The US Navy secures international shipping. Hahaha. OMG Elvis, that was funny.
USA=bad yes, and I support it with examples. You reply with drivel.

Yeah, I am going to back off on that now. Peter Zeihan mentioned this about the USA navy and global trade. It is true that the USA has the biggest blue ocean navy that can project power anywhere in the world. The second largest air force in the world actually belongs to the USA navy, however the notion that the USA is keeping oceanic trade open seems to be more of an American navy slogan than reality when I dug deeper into it.

However the larger point Zeihan was getting at was that the nature of globalism is on the down swing, and I do agree with that. The USA no longer needs to secure oil from the Persian Gulf. We have plenty of our own now. And blowing up the Russia's Nordstream pipeline was done in part to allow the USA to EXPORT natural gas to Europe. The amount has been in the billions and will soon be in the trillions. Maybe you should start calling it the petroEuro now.

The USA is more interested in being a regional than global player, and money is being shifted away from China to Mexico, Canada, Central America, Canada, and to a lesser degree Colombia and Chile, and you are going to see those nations prosper while China falters.

[JustTK]

A succinct explanation of the economic history of Puerto Rico under US imperialist rule.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iju8pBdbmxE

[JustTK]

It used the word "socialist" in its name to try to make it popular with the working class, but the Nazis were actually a party of the business class .

A great example of names that mean nothing - "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" - the name of a country that has a sole political party.