The Real Americans

[NAME REMOVED]

Each day I will post about someone who is involved with making America a better place. With so much hatred and division, one person stands out:

AOC

 

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is a true American hero. She came from humble beginnings in the Bronx, living with her working class family. AOC never had a free ride, like most politicians. She did it the old fashion way, putting herself through University by working as a waitress and bartender. She exhibits all the traits Americans should strive for. She cares for the working class, and is a peoples champion.

Not only is AOC physically beautiful, but her heart is in the right place. 

Edited January 17 by DUI_Offender

[gatomontes99]

Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

Oh my gawsh!

Lololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololol

It figures that the first person you pick is an expressed socialist...aka authoritarian.

[Nationalist]

The walking Maybaline advert.

"There's no such thing as spending too much. Just ask my dress maker."

[NAME REMOVED]

48 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

It figures that the first person you pick is an expressed socialist...

Technically, I consider myself a social democrat.  

Socialism has many good ideas.

[gatomontes99]

Just now, DUI_Offender said:

Technically, I consider myself a social democrat.  

Socialism has many good ideas.

Like enslaving the populous.

Socialism cannot coexist with individual rights.

[NAME REMOVED]

 

Pros of socialism

• Reduction of relative poverty. A welfare state which provides a minimum basic income for those who are unemployed, sick or unable to work maintains a basic living standard for the poorest in society and helps to reduce relative poverty.
• Free health care. Free health care at the point of use means everyone is entitled to basic health care. This increases the living standards of those who cannot afford to pay private doctors. By improving the nation’s health it also contributes towards increased labour productivity and higher economic growth in the long-term. In the US, there is no universal health care and uninsured workers can slip through the net and either not be entitled to health care or go bankrupt trying to pay bills. According to CNBC (2019) ‘[in the US], An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills.]
• Diminishing marginal utility of income. From a utilitarian perspective, a redistribution of income and opportunity from the very rich to the very poor can increase total utility [happiness] in society. A millionaire who pays a marginal income tax rate of 50% still has the ability to buy most goods they need. If an unemployed person gains an extra £50 it leads to a very large increase in utility because they can afford to buy basic necessities. See: diminishing marginal utility of income/wealth
• A more equal society is more cohesive. A society which has equality of opportunity and limited inequality is likely to be more cohesive. If people perceive they live in a very unequal society – exploited by monopsony employers and earning significantly less than their bosses, it can lead to frustration and resentment. If everyone feels they have a fair stake in society, it can help create a more harmonious society where workers are committed to the success of the firm which they work.
• Socialist values encourage selflessness rather than selfishness. Capitalism encourages attitudes to make profit – even if it is at the cost of other individuals or the environment. A socialist society does not pursue profit as its highest goal, but social cohesion and the common good.
• Benefits of public ownership. The benefit of public ownership is that companies can be run in the public interest rather than just for the benefit of shareholders. For example, industries like railways and water have significant externalities, which are ignored in a profit-oriented company. Public ownership of water and the railways allows the companies to target goals such as long-term investment, low prices for the consumer and improved safety.
• Environment. An economy which is regulated to work towards the long-term welfare will place a higher value on environmental concerns, such as limiting pollution – even if it lowers profit.
• Reduced hidden taxes. An economy with no public health care will have lower tax rates. However, individuals and firms will pay for health care in a different form. In the US both firms and individuals pay significant sums for private insurance. Therefore, although there is less tax, there is the ‘hidden’ tax of private health insurance. Furthermore, because the US health care system is for-profit with fewer constraints to limit spending, the US pay significantly more on health care (17.6% of GDP) than other countries (e.g. UK 9.6% of GDP) (See: Health care spending)

Edited January 17 by DUI_Offender

[Nationalist]

Ridiculous. You ignore the cons of socialism from the very link you sited.

Typical.

[gatomontes99]

Before I start, we have to understand what money represents. All money is earned by time. If you work, you get paid for units of time. If you invest you get paid for change over time. If you loan you get paid over time. Therefor, every dollar represents a portion of your life. The more taxes you pay, the more of your life you lose to the government. The more subsidies you receive, the more of someone else's life you have taken.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

Pros of socialism

• Reduction of relative poverty. A welfare state which provides a minimum basic income for those who are unemployed, sick or unable to work maintains a basic living standard for the poorest in society and helps to reduce relative poverty.
•  

Two major issues with this. First, there is no success without the possibility of failure. Second, by increasing the buying power of the poor, you will increase the cost of essential goods by increasing demands and therefore you will not change the circumstances of those that are poor. At the same time, the increased taxes will cause the middle class to have less money and they'll now be effectively poor.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

 

• Free health care. Free health care at the point of use means everyone is entitled to basic health care. This increases the living standards of those who cannot afford to pay private doctors. By improving the nation’s health it also contributes towards increased labour productivity and higher economic growth in the long-term. In the US, there is no universal health care and uninsured workers can slip through the net and either not be entitled to health care or go bankrupt trying to pay bills. According to CNBC (2019) ‘[in the US], An estimated 530,000 families turn to bankruptcy each year because of medical issues and bills.

 

There is no free. All government paid health care follows the same path. It starts by painting with a broad brush to entice voters to vote away their right to life. After they've done that, demand for services will exceed supply (like a candy store that gives away candy to kids). So the government, incapable of increasing supply due to constraints of money and or personell, will start wait lists that will prioritize based on government priorities. Low pay for professionals will cause more lack of supply. Eventually, care will be difficult to impossible to obtain and constraints will be numerous. At that point, the right to live will be obviously lost and can't be regained without force.

How did they vote away their right to life? Let's start with the definition of right: power or privilege held by the general public [Cornell]. If the individual controls the 6 Ws (who, what, when, where, why and how) of an act, they hold the right. If the government controls the 6 Ws, then it is a privilege or entitlement.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

Diminishing marginal utility of income. From a utilitarian perspective, a redistribution of income and opportunity from the very rich to the very poor can increase total utility [happiness] in society. A millionaire who pays a marginal income tax rate of 50% still has the ability to buy most goods they need. If an unemployed person gains an extra £50 it leads to a very large increase in utility because they can afford to buy basic necessities. See: diminishing marginal utility of income/wealth

This is laughable. The people that are rich will be controlling the government. They'll use the tax dollars that the government collects to line their pockets. So, yes, millionaires will be ecstatic. You won't be. Your 50% marginal rate will be devastating.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

• A more equal society is more cohesive. A society which has equality of opportunity and limited inequality is likely to be more cohesive. If people perceive they live in a very unequal society – exploited by monopsony employers and earning significantly less than their bosses, it can lead to frustration and resentment. If everyone feels they have a fair stake in society, it can help create a more harmonious society where workers are committed to the success of the firm which they work.

There will be massive inequality in socialism. Inequity will be minimal. That is a huge difference. If there is equality, there is inequity. Inequity exists because outcomes for equal and free people will vary.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

• Socialist values encourage selflessness rather than selfishness. Capitalism encourages attitudes to make profit – even if it is at the cost of other individuals or the environment. A socialist society does not pursue profit as its highest goal, but social cohesion and the common good.

Socialism doesn't change behavior. It attempts to force behavior. That is the big folly of socialism. Greed, selfishness, etc will always exist regardless of how authoritarian the government is. If anything, socialism will make greed worse. Because resources will be harder to gain and gaining resources will mean taking from others, greed and selfishness will flourish. This is how socialism always fails. Why work when you get the same stuff if you are lazy? Why be honest when the only way to get ahead is to steal?

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

• Benefits of public ownership. The benefit of public ownership is that companies can be run in the public interest rather than just for the benefit of shareholders. For example, industries like railways and water have significant externalities, which are ignored in a profit-oriented company. Public ownership of water and the railways allows the companies to target goals such as long-term investment, low prices for the consumer and improved safety.

This is the most naive point yet. Who are these angels that will protect our interests? They won't be greedy? Obviously it's only greedy if it's the other guy. Let's talk about reality. If a "business" doesn't have to be profitable why would they have to have quality? In capitalistic economies, poor products are rejected by the consumers because they have limited funds and won't waste it on products that don't meet their needs or wants. In socialism, profit isn't necessary so they provide whatever crap they want to and you, as the consumer, have no choice but to accept it.

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

• Environment. An economy which is regulated to work towards the long-term welfare will place a higher value on environmental concerns, such as limiting pollution – even if it lowers profit.

Then why is China the dirtiest country in the world?

1 hour ago, DUI_Offender said:

• Reduced hidden taxes. An economy with no public health care will have lower tax rates. However, individuals and firms will pay for health care in a different form. In the US both firms and individuals pay significant sums for private insurance. Therefore, although there is less tax, there is the ‘hidden’ tax of private health insurance. Furthermore, because the US health care system is for-profit with fewer constraints to limit spending, the US pay significantly more on health care (17.6% of GDP) than other countries (e.g. UK 9.6% of GDP) (See: Health care spending)

Private insurance isn't a hidden tax. That is an insane stretch. Health insurance is a cost. There are far more efficient, captalist ways to obtain health care. We should explore those and retain our right to live.

Edited January 17 by gatomontes99

[Venandi]

3 hours ago, DUI_Offender said:

Each day I will post about someone who is involved with making America a better place.

Bet you can't get to tomorrow on a single page.

[Politics1990]

i support her on most things but  wasnt she flipping cause 2 democrats voted against  trans woman being in woman sports?  i am sorry i am center -left but i will never be in favor of trans woman (born male) being allowed in womans sports no matter how much  democrats seem to want it

[Nationalist]

Next stop...

https://nyti.ms/3Yha5tW

 

[ironstone]

[Black Dog]

2 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Then why is China the dirtiest country in the world?

Capitalism.

[gatomontes99]

1 minute ago, Black Dog said:

Capitalism.

That comment is so incredibly stùpid. Do you know nothing about China?

 

[Legato]

1 minute ago, Legato said:

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

That comment is so incredibly stùpid. Do you know nothing about China?

 

Yes.

[gatomontes99]

9 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

Yes.

Yes, you know nothing? Wow.

[Black Dog]

12 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Yes, you know nothing? Wow.

Bro you think China's pollution isn't because of the rapacious demands of global capitalism.

[NAME REMOVED]

6 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Like enslaving the populous.

Socialism cannot coexist with individual rights.

I guess you have never heard of Scandinavia.

4 hours ago, Politics1990 said:

i support her on most things but  wasnt she flipping cause 2 democrats voted against  trans woman being in woman sports?  i am sorry i am center -left but i will never be in favor of trans woman (born male) being allowed in womans sports no matter how much  democrats seem to want it

I agree. Biological males competing in Women's sports is cheating. No different that taking performance enhancing drugs.

[Politics1990]

3 hours ago, Legato said:

oh my so clever you are... you could make  images like that with any politican try to be a grown up and not a toddler would you

1 minute ago, DUI_Offender said:

I guess you have never heard of Scandinavia.

I agree. Biological males competing in Women's sports is cheating. No different that taking performance enhancing drugs.

100% facts i hate  how the majority of democrats  trying to push it on people though . and i  am a left leaning person usually lol.

[gatomontes99]

38 minutes ago, DUI_Offender said:

I guess you have never heard of Scandinavia.

Scandinavia what? Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain and France are all European countries, that doesn't make them the same. Hell, try closer to home. The US, Canada, Mexico, Bhamas and Cuba are nothing alike. What are you trying to say? That some country or collection of countries in the Scandinavian region somehow figured out how to control evey aspect of someone's life while preserving rights. Because that's not possible. That is like saying you had ice tea on the surface of the sun. It can't happen.

Even if you want to make that play, it is based on the lie that Scandinavia countries are socialist:

The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

 

[Black Dog]

3 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

Scandinavia what? Britain, Germany, Greece, Spain and France are all European countries, that doesn't make them the same. Hell, try closer to home. The US, Canada, Mexico, Bhamas and Cuba are nothing alike. What are you trying to say? That some country or collection of countries in the Scandinavian region somehow figured out how to control evey aspect of someone's life while preserving rights. Because that's not possible. That is like saying you had ice tea on the surface of the sun. It can't happen.

Even if you want to make that play, it is based on the lie that Scandinavia countries are socialist:

The simple fact is that Scandinavian countries are not, by any reasonable definition, socialist.

The simple fact is if anyone proposed the USA adopted a robust social welfare model like the Nordic states, you and all your fellow chuds would cry that it was socialism lol.

[gatomontes99]

5 minutes ago, Black Dog said:

The simple fact is if anyone proposed the USA adopted a robust social welfare model like the Nordic states, you and all your fellow chuds would cry that it was socialism lol.

And that it eliminates rights. The two cannot exist in the same space.

[Legato]

56 minutes ago, Politics1990 said:

oh my so clever you are... you could make  images like that with any politican try to be a grown up and not a toddler would you

 

Do try English, that discord jangles the nerves.

[Black Dog]

6 minutes ago, gatomontes99 said:

And that it eliminates rights. The two cannot exist in the same space.

Like what, the right to die because you can't afford health care?