Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Also, the context is that bread lines are "less bad" than what was going on in African countries at the time (especially Ethiopia), where the rich were getting all the food and the poor were starving to death - Ethiopia was in a civil war at the time, just like Somaila was in the 1990s to today.
"Give us this day our daily bread . . ." . . Uh, yeah - Feed the Roman Catholics.
Bernie Sanders once said breadlines are good -- I grew up in Communist China and I can tell you they're not.
Well, I'm no Bernie supporter, but I think what he was trying to say is a breadline is better than no line. Breadlines in general are not a good thing. But it's better than scavenging through heaps of diseased trash looking for something to consume.
And according to Bernie in the cited article: "It’s funny, sometimes American journalists talk about how bad a country is because people are lining up for food. That is a good thing! In other countries, people don’t line up for food. The rich get the food and the poor starve to death.”
So do tell, just WHAT is so horrible about a country that would feed those who have nothing to eat rather than leave them to starve to death?
WHY is it people want to pat themselves on the back as Americans when we go all around the world helping others yet cry SOCIALISM! at the mere thought of helping an American?
I prefer a country where we everyone has an opportunity to eat. He acts like all countries must ration its food, and you either have food lines, or the food is rationed and given to the rich.
Socialism ALWAYS lead to poverty and hunger to all of its citizens except its ruling elite. ALWAYS. What's so horrible about wanting to avoid that, and instead have a country where every class has food?
He loves socialism so much because it's a system that he believes will allow him to rise to the top, with all of its perks, with the ability to fund those perks thanks to a powerful government. A government that will be controlled by an elite few, and forcibly confiscate the property of its citizens under the guise of "the greater good". He's confident he'll be one of the elite, and in his mind deservedly so, since he considers himself smarter than everyone else.
Outstanding commentary!
Quote:
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. Their very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be ‘cured’ against one’s will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals. —C. S. Lewis, “God in the Dock”
Quote:
"The law has been used to destroy it's own objective; It has been applied to annihilating the justice that it was supposed to maintain; to limiting and destroying rights which it's real purpose was to respect. The law has placed the collective force at the disposal of the unscrupulous who wish, without risk, to exploit the person, liberty, and property of others. It has converted plunder into a right in order to protect plunder. And it has converted lawful defense into a crime, in order to punish lawful defense." "But it is also true that a man may live and satisfy his wants by seizing and consuming the products of the labor of others. This process is the origin of plunder." --- The Law by Frederic Bastiat (1801-1850) French economist, statesman
It never starts out that way. Things always start out with the socialists painting a rosy picture of free healthcare for everyone and other social safety nets but it won't just end there. Socialism would never gain a foothold in any society if it didn't originally sell to the poor and underclass a fairer system for them. The problem is that once they get a little taste of the free stuff, it only will expand from there.
Sanders, AOC and other professed socialists' rhetoric are always based on class warfare: the wealthy are greedy and we need to take (tax) them and redistribute their wealth to the poor. This sounds exactly like those communist regimes talked about here. You seem to get caught up in the fact that those regimes used dictatorship force and that makes the Sanders version different. What you fail to understand is that regardless of how the means to get to a socialist state be it violent or peaceful, the idea is the same.
After a while under socialism, there is little motivation to produce in a society that will take from you all you've worked for and give to those who are unwilling to work. What's the point of overachieving?
This will lead to an overall decline in the country's economic output. Economic production slows down and the country's wealth declines, meaning we will get poorer. And while we might not have gone through the violence upheaval like Russia and China did, we will end up with the same results, i.e. everyone is poor.
That's exactly the reason why Democrats/Socialists want to abolish the 2nd Amendment. It has nothing to do with the prevention of crime or making anyone safer. They know that once their policies are in effect and everyone who is forced to live under them will be equally miserable, everyone that is except for our benevolent overlords, that there will indeed be a violent upheaval.
Just try to imagine what Venezuela would be like today if its citizens had the right to keep and bear arms and were as heavily armed as we are in the United States?
Well, I'm no Bernie supporter, but I think what he was trying to say is a breadline is better than no line. Breadlines in general are not a good thing. But it's better than scavenging through heaps of diseased trash looking for something to consume.
You mean like in downtown LA at the corner of San Pedro, 5th and Crocker streets? California is a bastion of progressive Liberal social policies. Or you might want to check out Sewark er Newark, N.J. of which Cory Booker was mayor. While you're in New Jersey check out Camden.
Last edited by Ex New Yorker; 03-10-2019 at 06:13 PM..
Do you have private health insurance? That's a socialistic idea. The collective pool part of their resources together to benefit everyone involved. Do you drive on public roads? Again, public roads are a socialist idea. Hospitals are socialist as well. If tomorrow we rid of our country every socialist aspect of our society, trust me our country would break down instantly.
The difference is that with private health insurance you have a choice whether to have it or not. You also get to choose what your deductibles will be based on what you can afford. Many companies provide it for their employees. I doubt very much that their employees will want to give up their employer provided health insurance. Only to be thrown into a pool of people who put nothing into the system in a one size fits all system.
With socialized health insurance you're forced to pay for it by the government taxing the hell out of you whether you like it or not. It's been estimated that medicare for all will cost over 33 trillion dollars over a 10 year period. Our public roads are paid for by those that use them with fuel taxes and vehicle registration fees. With medicare for all there will be tens of millions of people including all those who are in this country illegally not putting a single dime into the system. It will only encourage more to come. The State of California is already proposing this at a cost of over 400 billion dollars which is almost double the entire state budget of around 200 billion. That would bring the state budget to over 600 billion dollars.
Not only that, I for one do not want some government bureaucrat making my healthcare decisions for me. I don't think you're gonna' find too many doctors and healthcare providers happy with some government bureaucrat that doesn't know a GD thing about medical procedures setting fees either. Same for the pharmaceutical industry in manufacturing drugs along with the costs for the research and development of new drugs.
As with everything else the government provides there's very little accountability as to how the money is being spent. Not too mention all of the waste fraud and abuse as taxpayers are an endless resource of money that is ripe for the taking. Unlike private corporations that have to compete to survive the government will never go out of business for providing substandard sh*tty products or services.
Quote:
California's fiscal risks despite largest surplus in more than... http://www.cnbc.com/2018/06/27/calif...an-decade.html
Jun 28, 2018 ... California Gov. Jerry Brown signs a $201 billion budget plan with a surplus of almost $9 billion but the Golden State faces big fiscal risks that ...
Single-payer healthcare could cost $400 billion to implement ... www.latimes.com/politics/essential/la-pol-ca...
A single-payer healthcare system in California — a galvanizing cause among the state's progressive flank — would cost $400 billion annually, ... proposed to revamp the Los Angeles County MTA ...
Single-Payer Health Care Would Cost California More Than ... http://www.governing.com/topics/heal...n-services/tns...
RELATED. Overall costs of the new taxes, the report said, would be largely offset by reduced spending on health care coverage by employers and employees under a state-run plan. The report noted that the estimated annual cost for employer sponsored health insurance in California is between $100 billion to $150 billion.
Quote:
Analysis of Manufacturing Costs in Pharmaceutical Companies
moodle.univ-lille2.fr/pluginfile.php/28162/mod_resource...
The manufacturing cost of pharmaceuticals, commonly known as cost of goods sold (COGS), was approximately $90 billion in 2001 for the top 16 drug companies [1].
How much does it cost to build a biological pharmaceutical ... www.quora.com/How-much-does-it-cost-to-build-a...
One of the smaller manufacturing sites like Alexion Smithfield's plant which produces Soliris, a drug that is used to treat a couple thousand patients, cost a mere $150 million to renovate and retrofit the site when it first got commercialized in 2006.
How Much Does It Cost To Make A Pharmaceutical Product? http://www.wellspringcmo.com/...cost...utical-product
In a pharmaceutical product, that is the biggest portion of cost, next to materials, is how much fixed cost has to go into your product to make it according to regulatory standards. So, generally, we can't give a price list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
at the mere thought of helping an American?
