packgrad said:

---

Civilized said:

---

packgrad said:

---

Hahaha. Agree on all counts.

---

Fantasy 2024 ticket of of Nikki "Angelface" Haley and Tulsi?

They'd have the American male vote covered for sure.

---

Lol. I'm in.

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Nothing to see here.....





Remember, if you take the time to watch this.... what you're seeing can't be real, because it's just a crazy conspiracy theory.

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

It's almost as if you didn't see this:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

---

Civilized said:

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Nah. They almost all of them were Christian. Almost all Protestant. Some were even ordained ministers.

---

The irony of this conversation is that the founders' incredible work means that it doesn't matter what the actual breakdown was. They built in room for Christians, Christian deists, non-Christian deists, atheists, and other religions such that there is always both freedom to practice (or not) and freedom from the church influencing the government.

But regarding "almost all" of the founders being Christian, it's way more complex than that. Brittanica breaks down some of the nuance including the common misconception that "deist" is a synonym for "Christian."

"Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time."

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

---

caryking said:

---

Civilized said:

---

IseWolf22 said:

---

Can you define the difference between socialism and democratic socialism? It's a nebulous term with various groups around the world calling themselves "Democratic socialists." They do however still believe in collective or government ownership of the economy, sooooo it's not that far off from plain socialism.

From the Democratic Socialists of America's own definition:
"Social ownership could take many forms, such as worker-owned cooperatives or publicly owned enterprises managed by workers and consumer representatives. Democratic socialists favor as much decentralization as possible. While the large concentrations of capital in industries such as energy and steel may necessitate some form of state ownership, many consumer-goods industries might be best run as cooperatives."

Bernie is a populist and more similar to Trump than either would like to admit.

---

I equate discussion about democratic socialism with hard core fiscal conservatives talking about supporting "free market capitalism."

Neither is practically applied in America as a literal interpretation but both have takeaways that could be beneficial for Americans (as they have been elsewhere in the world).

Single payer health care and a living wage are two DS hot-button issues that aren't bat-**** crazy.

Democratic socialism isn't McCarthyism.

---

That is exactly a socialist ideal. No where in a free society does those two examples exist. Form my perspective, based on your examples, you have a warped view of the very intent of this country.

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

I'm just going to go vote normally. I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes, and more often than not I go and walk right up to a table with no wait at all.

I just like putting the ballot into the machine myself.

---

Civilized said:

---

Pacfanweb said:

---

I'm just going to go vote normally. I've never had to wait more than 10 minutes, and more often than not I go and walk right up to a table with no wait at all.

I just like putting the ballot into the machine myself.

---

I like the process of it too and the polling place is walkable from our house but I'm going to vote early just in case.

Will be the first time I've ever voted early, or by any way other than going to our polling place.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

That is exactly a socialist ideal. No where in a free society does those two examples exist. Form my perspective, based on your examples, you have a warped view of the very intent of this country.

---

If folks want a living wage then they should go out and get a job that pays them a wage that supports their lifestyles. A lot of the people that want a living wage are also working jobs that aren't worth more than what they are getting paid now. I shouldn't be responsible for the person who has worked at McDonalds for the last 20 years making 10 bucks an hour due to their life choices. I should be rewarded for my time in school, all of the overtime through the years that I have worked, all the certifications that I spent time effort and money on, The time away from my family working weekends, nights, and vacations while everyone else is out. I shouldn't have to give up part of that to someone else who hasn't done those things. - taking away from me to give to someone who didn't is bat**** crazy

Single payer healthcare is the same way. The government is gonna end up managing that and I think we can all agree they can't manage themselves...but you want to give them more to manage? I have no faith that the government can do that. Look at the ACA...all them managed to do here is drive up the cost of insurance and healthcare across the board...its bat**** crazy to put the government in charge of more.

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

That is exactly a socialist ideal. No where in a free society does those two examples exist. Form my perspective, based on your examples, you have a warped view of the very intent of this country.

---

If folks want a living wage then they should go out and get a job that pays them a wage that supports their lifestyles. A lot of the people that want a living wage are also working jobs that aren't worth more than what they are getting paid now. I shouldn't be responsible for the person who has worked at McDonalds for the last 20 years making 10 bucks an hour due to their life choices. I should be rewarded for my time in school, all of the overtime through the years that I have worked, all the certifications that I spent time effort and money on, The time away from my family working weekends, nights, and vacations while everyone else is out. I shouldn't have to give up part of that to someone else who hasn't done those things. - taking away from me to give to someone who didn't is bat**** crazy

Single payer healthcare is the same way. The government is gonna end up managing that and I think we can all agree they can't manage themselves...but you want to give them more to manage? I have no faith that the government can do that. Look at the ACA...all them managed to do here is drive up the cost of insurance and healthcare across the board...its bat**** crazy to put the government in charge of more.

---

Minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

If it had kept up with inflation since 1970 it would be $11/hour. If it kept up with productivity it would be nearly $19/hour.

Who does that minimum wage lag benefit? Not employees. It sure helps employers and corporations increase the bottom line though.

That is what a living wage is largely intended to rectify. Whatever you call it, resetting minimum wage to be inflation-adjusted and then bumping it up by cost of living increases, at least minimally, is no different than giving your staff a COLA each year. Even if you think 'living wage' sounds socialist, that concept shouldn't be at all controversial.

And ACA didn't drive up the cost of insurance and healthcare 'across the board'.

It changed who was paying more for insurance and healthcare. If it increased it 'across the board' there would be noticeable increases in insurance premiums or healthcare spending by Americans post-ACA adoption relative to increases pre-ACA. There wasn't. Health care costs have been increasing linearly for decades. The ACA didn't fix that problem but it didn't cause it, either.

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Who cares what minimum wage should be. The truth is that if you don't like what your making then go out, learn a skill, and then find a job that pays better. I shouldn't be responsible for that

If ACA didn't drive up the cost of insurance, then how do you account for the cost of plans going through the roof since the ACA?

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

caryking said:

---

That is exactly a socialist ideal. No where in a free society does those two examples exist. Form my perspective, based on your examples, you have a warped view of the very intent of this country.

---

If folks want a living wage then they should go out and get a job that pays them a wage that supports their lifestyles. A lot of the people that want a living wage are also working jobs that aren't worth more than what they are getting paid now. I shouldn't be responsible for the person who has worked at McDonalds for the last 20 years making 10 bucks an hour due to their life choices. I should be rewarded for my time in school, all of the overtime through the years that I have worked, all the certifications that I spent time effort and money on, The time away from my family working weekends, nights, and vacations while everyone else is out. I shouldn't have to give up part of that to someone else who hasn't done those things. - taking away from me to give to someone who didn't is bat**** crazy

Single payer healthcare is the same way. The government is gonna end up managing that and I think we can all agree they can't manage themselves...but you want to give them more to manage? I have no faith that the government can do that. Look at the ACA...all them managed to do here is drive up the cost of insurance and healthcare across the board...its bat**** crazy to put the government in charge of more.

---

Minimum wage is $7.25/hour.

If it had kept up with inflation since 1970 it would be $11/hour. If it kept up with productivity it would be nearly $19/hour.

Who does that minimum wage lag benefit? Not employees. It sure helps employers and corporations increase the bottom line though.

That is what a living wage is largely intended to rectify. Whatever you call it, resetting minimum wage to be inflation-adjusted and then bumping it up by cost of living increases, at least minimally, is no different than giving your staff a COLA each year. Even if you think 'living wage' sounds socialist, that concept shouldn't be at all controversial.

And ACA didn't drive up the cost of insurance and healthcare 'across the board'.

It changed who was paying more for insurance and healthcare. If it increased it 'across the board' there would be noticeable increases in insurance premiums or healthcare spending by Americans post-ACA adoption relative to increases pre-ACA. There wasn't. Health care costs have been increasing linearly for decades. The ACA didn't fix that problem but it didn't cause it, either.

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

Two things:

1). Yes, ACA absolutely drove up insurance costs. And did so substantially.

2). Are we supposed to assume that minimum wage was at the "right" level in 1970? How would we know?

---

Civilized said:

---

cowboypack02 said:

---

Who cares what minimum wage should be. The truth is that if you don't like what your making then go out, learn a skill, and then find a job that pays better. I shouldn't be responsible for that

If ACA didn't drive up the cost of insurance, then how do you account for the cost of plans going through the roof since the ACA?

---

Who cares, or who SHOULD care?

You've said you don't care. I don't mean that as a pejorative, I get it. It just doesn't seem to impact you. You're a professional earning a professional salary. The answer though is that everybody should care because minimum wage has broad societal impacts. Based on your logic, why not just do away with minimum wage and let the free market reign?

Minimum wage is similar to wanting to decrease the number of uninsured Americans because them going to the emergency room for a hangnail introduces inefficiencies that cost everyone.

Regarding ACA, costs didn't go up across the board. They went up for some people but there wasn't an aggregate increase in premium costs beyond an extension of the linear trend that dates back decades.

---

caryking said:

---

Yes! That's a novel idea. The free market will always provide a better solution for all. The very idea you doubt it is the real problem. I'm still looking for a government program or control that is working.

---

SupplyChainPack said:

---

You think America became the world's powerhouse with hundreds of thousands of pages of regulations?

Interesting.

---