Red flag in the US: one of three Democrats identifies as Socialist

The fact is simple, the normal course of wealth is to beget consumption. The rare course is to delay gratification.

None of this has anything at all to do with anything I’ve argued in this thread.

Do you even know what the argument is that you’re arguing against?

Glad to. Show me how I am robbing the poor in my extended area when I contributre 20% of my increase annually directly to…

I’ve never said, suggested, or even hinted that I view you or anyone as “robbing the poor”, so yet again the only thing you’ve corrected is a strawman.

You said that you see the fact that 1% of this country owns more wealth than the bottom half combined as proof that the 1% know how to create wealth that much more. Please explain how this should not be interpreted as “I believe people are nothing more than the sum total of their net worth”.

Your "basketball" game [inconsistent rules with reality, because that's not how either basketball, or a free market economy works]. That said, your scoring is manipulated to support your argument, which is not real, either.

Well I have to start with… no shit it’s not consistent with reality, that’s why we call that an analogy. Stay with me here.

Please answer the very simple question (is this a game set up to test which team is actually better) and then explain what is the meaningful difference between this and capitalism.

Let's try to find common ground here. Are you at least willing to concede that a good chunk of today's 1 percenters are there because of an extraordinary personal assimilation to a culture of delayed gratification? Or simply, is delayed gratification a significant causal factor for many of the one percenters?

Even if we assume for the sake of argument that most 1 percenters started with substantial unearned wealth or cultural advantages, would you concede that a good chunk who grew their wealth instead of shrank their wealth did so through an extraordinary commitment to delayed gratification?

Which system provides greater opportunity to convert delayed gratification into increased personal wealth: one that allows individuals to retain more of the resulting gains, or one that progressively redistributes more of those gains?

At the very least, can you provide the exact mechanism under Capitalism that shields the one percenters from having to delay gratification to keep or grow their existing wealth?

Delayed gratification is about forgoing consumption that is available to you, not living cheaply in absolute terms. A billionaire may only spend a fraction of the returns on his investments every year, but it is still himself who CHOOSES to live off less than he could have spent, regardless of the fact that the amount is much higher than most people who spend every penny of their income.

If you can show me the mechanism, or at least some real-world examples where a one-percenter spent his entire yearly income and still grew his wealth that year, I'd be willing to concede on my part.

Billionaires let their wealth grow in stock investment and therefore do not pay taxes on their accumulated wealth until it is cashed in. The average person needs regular income to survive and therefore taxed on his income.

Debby,

 the current problem with food in America.

Food isn't the problem. The problem is entirely in what we decide goes in the pie hole. Why do you think I call it that? Because we are the problem, not the food. We decide it's a pie hole, not an apple hole.

Are you at least willing to concede that a good chunk of today's 1 percenters are there because of an extraordinary personal assimilation to a culture of delayed gratification?

Yes

would you concede that a good chunk who grew their wealth instead of shrank their wealth did so through an extraordinary commitment to delayed gratification?

Yes

Which system provides greater opportunity to convert delayed gratification into increased personal wealth: one that allows individuals to retain more of the resulting gains, or one that progressively redistributes more of those gains?

The former

If you can show me the mechanism, or at least some real-world examples where a one-percenter spent his entire yearly income and still grew his wealth that year, I'd be willing to concede on my part.

I probably could not

Please explain how this should not be interpreted as “I believe people are nothing more than the sum total of their net worth”.

My monetary net worth is merely one measure of my existence.

What I've learned and stored in my mind is part of my net worth.

The family I've gathered around me is part of my net worth.

The experiences I have had are part of my net worth.

The places I have been in the world are part of my net worth.

The people with me I call friends, are part of my net worth.

The fact that I declare Christ as my Savior is part of my net worth.

The fact that I am made of better stuff than this crude matter, but that I am a being of light is part of my net worth.

The fact that I am a child of God, and all the above, is all of my net worth.

no shit it’s not consistent with reality, that’s why we call that an analogy. 

If an analogy does not represent reality, of what worth is it? Not a lesson I desire for my improvement.

is this a game [your "basketball"] set up to test which team is actually better?

No, it isn't, simply because of my answer above re: analogy. Final score is not the only measure, as evidenced by two teams playing each other more than once in a season. Sometimes, one team always wins, sometimes they split victories. Either one demonstrates better skill by more than score. What is not real about your basketball scoring is that it expects that everything worthy of having reduces to a dollar value in capitalism. Nope. Observe the list above about my true net worth. Observe, as well, the encounter of Christ and the rich young man who wanted to get to heaven [Matthew 19: 16-30] Let's note, first, that we do not know until verse 22, 7 verses in, that the man was wealthy, yet all the advice given to him up to then was ignored by him because of his wealth, which suddenly became more important to him than heaven. And the second lesson out of this story is the belief by many Christians who don't get it, either. They think this story means everyone should give all they have to the poor to gain heaven, as if buying the most expensive ticket was the only way to get there. Nope. That was singular advice to that man because that man held more value in his money than he did in gaining heaven. For him and everyone like him. Are you? You seem to value money a lot since that's your singular view of capitalism, by your basketball game. It's all about money. It's all about the score. Nope. Wealth has many qualities, and I've just given you a few of them above. Money is part of it, not all. That's what's wrong with your "analogy."

The love of money is the root of all evil.

Double_R wrote:

Since you would later in the same post refer to an alternative as “soft socialism” it’s clear that you understand that there are very different degrees of “socialism” and insist on painting me with the most extreme brush you’ve got despite me being absolutely clear that it doesn’t describe my views.

To me a socialist and a woke (soft socialist) are the same shit because all of them long for communism. Always. Any woke will tell you that Cuba is (or was) an example of a society, specially those son of bitches that are in the international organisms like the UN, the WHO, the OAS, and the like.

This is what happens when you have no arguments. When you do not understand what you are actually talking about beyond the labels you were taught to throw around. You haven’t contributed a single meaningful thought throughout our conversation. Let me know when you have an actual idea to break down instead of a derogatory epithet.

I've just argued with general information about it. I mentioned Europe as a devastated example of how to spoil a succesful culture with a bit of "social justice". If you want to dismiss all what I said, that's your problem, not mine.

Anyway, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you're a bleeding-heart liberal, a white man that feels guilty for the injustices of the world.

So, you were telling that you want a bit of socialism, right? Tell us, what kind of socialism you want for the US?

The fact that I am a child of God, and all the above, is all of my net worth.

God, the people you call friends, the experiences you’ve had… are all totally irrelevant to a discussion about capitalism vs socialism. This is a comically stupid way to respond in this context, and I think you know that.

If an analogy does not represent reality, of what worth is it?

Because analogies help us test the logic of our conclusions by stripping away the factual basis our arguments are working with and thereby allowing us to clearly see the structure of our thinking model.

For example, if someone claims they believe aliens exist because no one has proven otherwise, I can ask them to prove that I don’t have an invisible dragon in my house. The invisible dragon thing is purely made up, so of course silly and has no connection to reality, but the logical test it exposes; prove the non existence of something; can be a valuable lesson to the person claiming aliens exist.

Let me know if you’d like me to expand further what analogies are and why they’re useful.

No, it isn't, simply because of my answer above re: analogy. Final score is not the only measure, as evidenced by two teams playing each other more than once in a season. Sometimes, one team always wins, sometimes they split victories. Either one demonstrates better skill by more than score. What is not real about your basketball scoring is that it expects that everything worthy of having reduces to a dollar value in capitalism. Nope. Observe the list above about my true net worth. Observe, as well, the encounter of Christ and the rich young man who wanted…

My god dude, this is just unserious. I asked you how to explain the meaningful difference between my analogy and capitalism, instead you started talking about regular season dynamics pivoting to the Bible. This is really starting to be a waste of time, even for someone like myself who doesn’t mind responding to silly arguments.

You seem to value money a lot since that's your singular view of capitalism, by your basketball game. It's all about money.

Yeah genius, that’s what the debate of capitalism vs socialism is literally about… money. No way you’re being serious.

To me a socialist and a woke (soft socialist) are the same shit because all of them long for communism.

And yet neither I, any prominent left winger here or any prominent left wing figure want communism, so your whole beef is with a figment of your imagination.

So, you were telling that you want a bit of socialism, right? Tell us, what kind of socialism you want for the US?

Let’s start with social security and Medicare. Do you approve of these programs?

Many countries in Europe are turning to socialism.

 I can ask them to prove that I don’t have an invisible dragon in my house.

There is logical fallacy attached to your logic.Where it is not currently true that you have an invisible dragon in your house, therefore, to ask your alien-believing neighbor to prove you do not have such a dragon, using a false statement to prove that the result proves your neighbor's fallacy is a real logical error.

Debby,

Does following the crowd as they jump off a cliff make any sense to you, even if they are all European?

Debby,

The love of money is the root of all evil.

I love the money I earn because I can and do donate 20% of it to charities of my choice. [that's double a tithe] I'll let you be my lawyer to explain why that's evil, but I'm not going to pay you to do it.

You are not motivated by greed. You are safe.

There is logical fallacy attached to your logic.Where it is not currently true that you have an invisible dragon in your house, therefore, to ask your alien-believing neighbor to prove you do not have such a dragon, using a false statement to prove that the result proves your neighbor's fallacy is a real logical error.

If you have no arguments left to support your beliefs and you just want to run away from the conversation, you could just not respond.

Double_R wrote:

Let’s start with social security and Medicare. Do you approve of these programs?

These programs have existed throughout the entire 20th century. There is no reason to think that they are socialist programs.

I think you're confusing socialism with social assistance. I said it in my past comments but it seems you don't pay attention. There are critical aspects of a country that a government shouldn't neglect and one of them is the health of the vulnerable citizens. Some people might argue that this can distort the health market but I don't see how it could because these programs are usually focused on the vulnerable people. People that can pay for their health insurance shouldn't have benefit of those programs, otherwise we would be talking about a universal health coverage and that is fucking socialist. When you expand the government social assistance you spend more money and that results in a raise of taxes in order to cover the budget of the tremendous social spending. That chain reaction is what usually happens in a socialist government which eventually ends in the destruction of the economy.

With that being said, I suppose you're against the Obamacare as the non-socialist that you are. Right?

I think you're confusing socialism with social assistance. I said it in my past comments but it seems you don't pay attention.

My god dude.

I spent the beginning of this thread (see posts 23, 32, and 39) trying to get through to you and others that the term socialism doesn’t mean what most of you are using it to mean, why the debate over socialism vs capitalism is stupid, and trying to get you to engage in a conversation about the ideas rather than the labels. All I got from you was “ah so you’re a socialist but just don’t want to admit it…”.

So no, I am not a socialist, glad you finally joined me. Now would you like to meaningfully respond to any of the multiple paragraph substantive posts I provided in this thread?

I suppose you're against the Obamacare as the non-socialist that you are. Right?

I am for Obamacare in that it is better than the alternative we had in place at the time.

I would prefer a single payer system, but never really looked that deeply into it to say if it’s the best alternative.

I am for Obamacare in that it is better than the alternative we had in place at the time.

So you are a socialist, at least in support of this socialist program. Obamacare isn't welfare for the vulnerable. It's broad coverage for those who are not. Obamacare, as you well know, isn't narrowly targeted welfare for the vulnerable. Your government uses mandates, subsidies, taxes, insurance regulations, and corporate welfare for private insurance companies to spread costs and mandates across a broad population, including many people who aren't poor or otherwise unable to provide for themselves.

I would prefer a single payer system, but never really looked that deeply into it to say if it’s the best alternative.

Banning unnutritious foods from SNAP (N stands for Nutrition) is probably going to help American healthcare more than any other program before or since from the government.

Lame attempt to get back in my head. Fail. Don't you have your own? Stay there, please. I'll respond to whatever the hell I choose, thank you. I boffer you the same. Fair enough?

We should all keep to our boundaries.

So you are a socialist

Got it. So according to Shorsey;

Socialist: someone who supports the ACA

I will make note of that so that I can chuck in the trash any concept that you calling someone a socialist is meaningful.

I'll respond to whatever the hell I choose

That’s your right, I’m just pointing out that you consistently choose to respond to the points that are irrelevant while not responding to the points that would actually challenge your world view, which is pretty cowardice. But again, that’s your right.

Got it. So according to Shorsey;

at least in support of this socialist program. 

Ty for this 100% honest discourse on your part. No need for deception, self or otherwise.

Socialist: someone who supports the ACA

Socialist: someone who supports the ACA (a socialist program)

Your crawfish defense is literally allowing:

Racist: someone who supports the KKK (a racist organization)

But NAWWWW say it aint so.... cause reasons...  

so that I can chuck in the trash any concept that you calling someone a racist, fascist, criminal, etc... is meaningful.

Being a socialist isn't inherently bad or immoral.

Being a deceptive one assuredly is.

The ACA isn’t socialism genius. That’s the difference.

Then make that argument. Don't try to be deceptive.

I would prefer a single payer system,

Oh, while you are at it, argue that this isn't socialism either.

genius. 

Personal slurs are the last resort of an idiot.

He got you there.

Double_R wrote:

I am for Obamacare in that it is better than the alternative we had in place at the time.

I would prefer a single payer system, but never really looked that deeply into it to say if it’s the best alternative.

Let me get that straight. Are you for the current Obamacare or the program Obama proposed initially?

Because Obama proposed more taxes for the Obamacare. That proposal was refused but the current program operates in a similar way which is to force people to subsidize the medical insurance of the rest.

I'm catching a whiff of socialism in your argument, to be honest. It's also possible that as the Democrat militant that you are, you don't want to make Obama look bad.