Think Before You Vote!

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

We’ll get sensible gun regulation and hopefully a gun owners registry (of which I’ll proudly place my name on as I’m not hiding anything).

the term, "they can look through all my stuff and register my gun, I have nothing to hide", are the words of a simpleton and the last free words spoken before you have to begin whispering with the radio turned on high

[Levianon17]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

a sterling and excellent post

the siren's song of something for nothing that is socialism entices the people's vote. it lessens initiative and ultimately ensnares the people

those in charge ride the wave as along as they can until, at some point, their daughter (as in the case of hugo chavez' daughter) has to hightail it out as the richest person in the country, to some other totalitarian garden spot, leaving the people in their squalor

Absolutely true. I am willing to bet under socialism America will be like a spoiled Child seeking something for nothing and still won't find happiness.Man was meant to toil and enjoy the fruits of his labor, Socialism in any form doesn't give you that.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Absolutely true. I am willing to bet under socialism America will be like a spoiled Child seeking something for nothing and still won't find happiness.Man was meant to toil and enjoy the fruits of his labor, Socialism in any form doesn't give you that.

the same people, and even more, who vote for something for nothing

are the same people who, when under Marxism, will say, "why should I work hard, I don't get anything extra?" and, "look at them (someone else), im not working harder than they do!"

[GastonGlock]

We will move toward a more just society.
It's currently fine. People need to suck less.

Women will have the choice to have an abortion without undue and unnecessary regulations.
That's fine, as long as they pay for it

Church and state will indeed be separated.
Good

We’ll get sensible gun regulation and hopefully a gun owners registry.
Literally over my dead body

Higher minimum wage.
Not needed. Employees decide their wage, not employers.

More wind and solar, better battery technology as well.
That'll happen organically, The government getting involved is just going to make their favorite people rich

Obama/a Bidencare
Over my dead body

13 member SC and restructured lower courts.
Also over my dead body

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by ICU 812

" .. .a rose by any other name . . "

My wife's family was deeply rooted in Venezuela. Many of her father's relatives have come to the USA, sponsored by him, in the past 20 years. All have lost much due to the socialist policies of first Chavez, then Maduro. They promised free everything and were elected, then changed their constitution to allow more socialism.

Now they are a beggar country on the world stage, while the people starve in the dark.

So what does Venezuela have to do with the future of the U.S. under Biden? Obama was POTUS for 8 years and we were no more socialistic in 2017 than we were in 2009. Under Biden I doubt the country will move to the left in any significant way, let alone become like Venezuela.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by GastonGlock

Just to be clear, the shit in red is what I DON'T want.

I am not saying I want either Democratic Socialism or true Socialism in this country. But I say that because I am closer to the top than I am to the bottom.

The primary differences I saw in the countries I listed is people pay more to the government while working and receive more back from the government both while working and when retired.

[reddog1951]

Glock, you stumbled into one of my favorite rants:
"Women will have the choice to have an abortion without undue and unnecessary regulations.
That's fine, as long as they pay for it"

I think the converse logic is more relevant. Give or take there are somewhere around 900,000 abortions/yr. Obviously, the mother did not want to raise the child and financial inability is a major reason. So, if we ban abortion and force birth 900,000 new previously unwanted children, who will bear the cost of their upbringing? I suspect public welfare with contribute greatly in one way or the other to not only prop up the kid, but the mother as well. Personally as a taxpayer, I'd rather pay for free birth control or drug induced abortion than pay out much more annually for each child (presumably fairly high percentage) ontil they reach 18. My challenge to my pro-life friends has always been either adopt one or pay "welfare"...either way, it's not my position, so don't expect me to pay.

[Unique_Carpenter]

Think about:
Who will raise taxes?
It's an easy decision.

Everything else is ideological theocracy.
Seriously, why should I pay for other folks problems? I have enough of my own stuff to deal with.

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

the term, "they can look through all my stuff and register my gun, I have nothing to hide", are the words of a simpleton and the last free words spoken before you have to begin whispering with the radio turned on high

+1 to that

If the Democrats sweep the elections and Robert O'Rourke becomes "Gun Czar", I will cash out all my other investments and buy stock in companies that make shovels.

[reddog1951]

First of all Unique, I don't find it too demanding to require the rich (say, over $400,000) to pay more federal personal income tax and eliminate some shelters so they at least pay the same percentage as the shrinking middle class. Sorry, but POTUS tax record ( including property tax abatements he has received) is affront to those of us that work for a living.

Regarding why should you pay for other's problems? It's called spread the risk, the very base of insurance. We may not need an army to defend the country at the moment, but may again at some point. Border control is a hot button, but someone has to pay the cost. I don't care to argue governmental waste, etc., but the bottom line is we ALL have to pay for services provided. Fat cats as well

[ICU 812]

Originally Posted by 1blackman1

In 2024 we will be just fine and leading into a new Democratic presidency. We will have actual policies and laws passed. Some I will disagree with some I won’t. The economy will be fine as it always is under democrats. Since Reagan no Republican president has handed off a better economy that he started with. Every Democrat has handed off a better economy than they started with. Republicans economic plans always end up failing.

We will move toward a more just society.

Women will have the choice to have an abortion without undue and unnecessary regulations.

Church and state will indeed be separated.




And so, you choose the Venezuela model. You could go live there now.

We’ll get sensible gun regulation and hopefully a gun owners registry (of which I’ll proudly place my name on as I’m not hiding anything).

Higher minimum wage.

More wind and solar, better battery technology as well.

Obama/a Bidencare

13 member SC and restructured lower courts. Return of SC justices to the circuits on rotation which will cause some of the older ones to go ahead and retire. Garland will get the seat that was stolen from him.

I’m sure they will shoot for more once they get rid of the filibuster

And so you choose the Venezuela model of government. I would suggest that you go live there now.

Everyone living there now wishes they were living here now.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

Ya know, I get the inkling that maybe we do need to re-institute voter tests. Or at least place a minimum threshold on IQ level to vote.


The next time anyone even thinks about a gun registry, remember these two things:

• Every Communist/Socialist regime that every existed, had as their first order of business to disarm the peasants.
• You can vote in Socialism, but you ALWAYS have to shoot your way out of it.

Originally Posted by Levianon17

Absolutely true. I am willing to bet under socialism America will be like a spoiled Child seeking something for nothing and still won't find happiness.Man was meant to toil and enjoy the fruits of his labor, Socialism in any form doesn't give you that.

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

ICU, there is socialism and then there is SOCIALISM.

Many countries are considered socialistic to a degree -- U.K.. Germany, The Netherlands, Sweden, Finland, Norway, Portugal, Denmark, Iceland, Italy, and France. And that's just Europe. These countries come under the heading of "Democratic Socialism".

The first number is per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power. The second number is government spending as a % of GDP. I looked up these numbers for the countries you listed, as well as the first world countries with the lowest government expenditures.

Do you see a pattern? The first world countries with the lowest government spending as a % of GDP have the highest per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power. That's if you throw out Norway, which is a petro state that receives lots of money from oil and gas production.

In other words, smaller government, less "socialism", results in greater prosperity.

United Kingdom: $44,288 (39.3%)
Germany: $53,371 (45.4%)
Netherlands: $57,101
Sweden: 52,477 (49.3%)
Finland: $49,334 (53.3%)
Norway: $64,856 (51.8%)
Portugal: $33,131 (42.7%)
Denmark: $57,781 (49.6%)
Iceland: $54,482 (41.9%)
Italy: $40,066 (48.7%)
France: $45,454 (55.6%)

United States: $63,051 (35.1%)
Ireland: $89,383 (25.3%)
Switzerland: $68,340 (32.4%)
Singapore: $95,603 (14.6%)
Hong Kong: $58,165 (18.3%)

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by Tiny

The first number is per capita GDP, adjusted for purchasing power. The second number is government spending as a % of GDP. I looked up these numbers for the countries you listed, as well as the first world countries with the lowest government expenditures.

Do you see a pattern? The first world countries with the lowest government spending as a % of GDP have the highest per capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power. That's if you throw out Norway, which is a petro state that receives lots of money from oil and gas production.

In other words, smaller government, less "socialism", results in greater prosperity.

United Kingdom: $44,288 (39.3%)
Germany: $53,371 (45.4%)
Netherlands: $57,101
Sweden: 52,477 (49.3%)
Finland: $49,334 (53.3%)
Norway: $64,856 (51.8%)
Portugal: $33,131 (42.7%)
Denmark: $57,781 (49.6%)
Iceland: $54,482 (41.9%)
Italy: $40,066 (48.7%)
France: $45,454 (55.6%)

United States: $63,051 (35.1%)
Ireland: $89,383 (25.3%)
Switzerland: $68,340 (32.4%)
Singapore: $95,603 (14.6%)
Hong Kong: $58,165 (18.3%)

Sorry Tiny if I don't fully understand what you are showing.

In the Democratic Socialist countries people pay more in taxes while they are working and get more back from the government both while working and after working than people in the U.S. who keep more of their money but get less back from the government.

Do you agree or disagree with that basic statement?

[Tiny]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Sorry Tiny if I don't fully understand what you are showing.

In the Democratic Socialist countries people pay more in taxes while they are working and get more back from the government both while working and after working than people in the U.S. who keep more of their money but get less back from the government.

Do you agree or disagree with that basic statement?

Sorry SpeedRacer, It's probably not clear. Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is the value of all products and services produced in a country during a year. Take that number and divide by the population, to get an average per person. Then you adjust for variations in purchasing power. For example, things are cheap in Portugal. One U.S. dollar in Portugal will buy you more than you'd get for a dollar in the USA, so you adjust the Portuguese "GDP per capita" upwards to take into account that. Here's a table of per Capita GDP adjusted for purchasing power by country:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...PP)_per_capita

I could have used something like median household income adjusted for purchasing power instead, but I wouldn't be able to find numbers for all the countries, and also that gives the edge to countries with large households, where you have more wage and salary earners under one roof.

The second number is the total government expenditures divided by GDP. For example, if U.S. federal, state and local governments spend $8 trillion a year and GDP is $20 trillion a year, then this number would be 8/20, or 40%.

What you see in the table, the countries with the highest GDP/capita have the lowest government spending as a % of GDP.

This makes sense, because in the long term it's growth in the private sector that increases GDP and makes a country more prosperous. When government accounts for a larger percentage of the economy, there's less left over for individuals and companies to save and invest and grow the economy.

As to your statement, I'm not sure it's necessarily true. Let's take an example. From my table, GDP per capita adjusted for purchasing power is $63,051 in the USA. Government spending is 35% of that amount or $22,068 per person. Compare to the UK, the top country on your list. Do the same calculation and you'll see government spending per person in the UK is $17,405 per person. How can this be? Because we produce more goods and services per person than the UK. Why? I'd argue in part because government is a smaller % of our economy, so our economy is larger than it would be otherwise.

Now if you repeated this calculation for, say, France, the number would be higher, $25,272 in government spending per person, compared to $22,068 here. But is it worth it? The French government spends $3204 more per person than we do. But GDP per capita is $17,597 less. That's not worth it in my opinion. I'd rather have an extra $17,597 in goods and services, rather than have the government spend $3204 more on me. Actually a good bit less than $3204, because they'll squander part on useless shit.