New York City

[Belinda]

Well you've been enjoying the fruits of a so-called 'socialist' country your whole life apparently.

Not at all. My country has never been Socialist. The most you could say is that it's been broadly a "capitalist" country with a few social programs that are bankrupting it; but you couldn't ever call it Socialist, because Socialism has never been in control of the means of production, which is its fundamental goal, if you know the theory.

Socialist countries, historically, have LOW standards of living, and a high rate of death. And they don't just "tax," but actively attack the whole concept of private property as well.

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers. The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.
If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

[Walker]

The blue arrow is a kindly PSA reminder to not litter the environment with squandered pixels, for the environmentally conscious and so that all may enjoy the scenery, which of course isn’t everyone's need.

[Age]

Many have found their interests sloughing into the waysides of irrelevancy when the Me Monster awakens to declare supremacy over topic.

Once again "walker" responds to me yet says and writes things that are completely irrelevant to what I have said, and meant.

[Age]

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Corrupted social programs, Gary, not social programs.
Corrupted immigration, Gary, not immigration.

Keyword: Corrupted. Cue the Democrats.

LOL
LOL
LOL

As can be very clearly seen, here, some people were completely absolutely blind, and deaf.

What stinks is that you already know the distinction, and for some reason you must muddy that clarity of distinctions in language that is designed to clarify meaning that represents reality.

For example, the Democrats opened the floodgates of the border for any and all who could set foot on American soil by hook or crook or cartel, to fall into the social safety net designed for, and paid for, tax payers. Democrats corrupted the immigration system all to hell.

Remember the hotels in NYC filled with illegals?
Talk about in-your-face unfairness and greed for political power at the expense of citizens.

[Walker]

Topic initiation does invite the social responsibility of janitorial duties if one so accepts, which trumps the Me Monster. In this situation such duties are mere suggestions based on logic.

[Age]

Age, are you familiar with the generally accepted meaning of the idiom: take a hint, in relation to meaning, communication, and uncircumspection?

No, to you, what is the exact 'generally accepted meaning' for the idiom, term, or phrase, 'take a hint'?

And, are you referring to your own personal 'generally accepted meaning', to you alone, or to some 'generally accepted meaning', to some, or to all, exactly?

If the answer is no, 'tis a simple matter to consult AI for such basics, and then being alert to verifying the consult in human ways.

Why do you instead not just present your own personal assumption, belief, or knowing, here?

And, which so-called 'ai' are you referring to, exactly?

you are aware what would obviously occur, right?

[Age]

This method of referencing the backstory with the blue arrow, is a wonderful backstory invention for making form transparent enough for content to reveal.

LOL

How blind and stupid some really were.

[Age]

The blue arrow is a kindly PSA reminder to not litter the environment with squandered pixels, for the environmentally conscious and so that all may enjoy the scenery, which of course isn’t everyone's need.

Did someone just so-call 'squander pixels' in writing what they just did?

[Immanuel Can]

Not at all. My country has never been Socialist. The most you could say is that it's been broadly a "capitalist" country with a few social programs that are bankrupting it; but you couldn't ever call it Socialist, because Socialism has never been in control of the means of production, which is its fundamental goal, if you know the theory.

Socialist countries, historically, have LOW standards of living, and a high rate of death. And they don't just "tax," but actively attack the whole concept of private property as well.

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers.

They are trained and educated. And they can be so in multiple ways. Private schooling, alternative schooling, charter schooling, communal schooling, home schooling and, in some a few cases, even self-scholing have proved, in various ways, to be better than government-run uniform schooling.

The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.

How does that help your case? It just proves, once again, that Marx didn't know anything about how history would go.

If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

Hilarious illogic, B. Do you realize you're arguing that if we have more Big Government then Big Government will be "kept at bay"? You're going to have to explain that to me. Big Government is the problem, not the solution. The bigger the government, and the more areas of private and community life it takes over (i.e. dictatorship), the more it needs to tax and dispossess ordinary citizens (i.e. kleptocracy), and the easier it is for the rich elites to control the masses (i.e. oligarchy). And the more Big Government does, the less "efficient" the workforce always becomes, because Socialism deprives them of any extra reward for productivity. That's why Socialist regimes are so notoriously inefficient and economically dysfunctional; nobody has a reason to go the extra mile or to assume any personal financial risk, and everybody has an incentive to work less, when everybody only gets the same payoff anyway.

So you're arguing in favour of the things you imagine you're against.

[Immanuel Can]

Not at all. My country has never been Socialist. The most you could say is that it's been broadly a "capitalist" country with a few social programs that are bankrupting it; but you couldn't ever call it Socialist, because Socialism has never been in control of the means of production, which is its fundamental goal, if you know the theory.

Socialist countries, historically, have LOW standards of living, and a high rate of death. And they don't just "tax," but actively attack the whole concept of private property as well.

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers.

There are many better schooling alternatives than government-mandates public schooling -- home schools, community schools, private schools, charter schools, post-secondary education, online education...in fact, the vain attempt to standardize all schooling and make it essentially the same for all difffent kinds of people has proved to be one of the major faults of monolythic, centralized, government schooling.

The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.

So again we see that Marx was foolish. The guy actually knew nothing about how society would develop, and his guesses were all wrong.

If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

The dead opposite, actually. People become less efficient when they are not rewarded. And Big Government IS the dictatorship, the kleptocracy and the oligarchy.

[Age]

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers.

There are many better schooling alternatives than government-mandates public schooling -- home schools, community schools, private schools, charter schools, post-secondary education, online education...in fact, the vain attempt to standardize all schooling and make it essentially the same for all difffent kinds of people has proved to be one of the major faults of monolythic, centralized, government schooling.

LOL 'Different kinds of people'.

The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.

So again we see that Marx was foolish. The guy actually knew nothing about how society would develop, and his guesses were all wrong.

If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

The dead opposite, actually. People become less efficient when they are not rewarded. And Big Government IS the dictatorship, the kleptocracy and the oligarchy.

And who is claimed to be the 'biggest government'?

[Belinda]

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country? If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers.

There are many better schooling alternatives than government-mandates public schooling -- home schools, community schools, private schools, charter schools, post-secondary education, online education...in fact, the vain attempt to standardize all schooling and make it essentially the same for all difffent kinds of people has proved to be one of the major faults of monolythic, centralized, government schooling.

The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.

So again we see that Marx was foolish. The guy actually knew nothing about how society would develop, and his guesses were all wrong.

If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

The dead opposite, actually. People become less efficient when they are not rewarded. And Big Government IS the dictatorship, the kleptocracy and the oligarchy.

Central government is not the same as kleptocracy, nor oligarchy, nor dictatorship.

Educated ,and therefore more powerful workers within democratic regimes ,can and do conserve both national productivity and welfare.

With the exception of very rich people who tend to have had expensive educations, badly educated people are misled to their own disadvantage by the political Right. The political Right , therefore, profits from keeping workers under- educated or even indoctrinated.

[Immanuel Can]

Immanuel, if the labour force is not fully educated and trained the means of production suffers.

There are many better schooling alternatives than government-mandates public schooling -- home schools, community schools, private schools, charter schools, post-secondary education, online education...in fact, the vain attempt to standardize all schooling and make it essentially the same for all difffent kinds of people has proved to be one of the major faults of monolythic, centralized, government schooling.

The days when there were plenty of disposable labourers are long gone.

So again we see that Marx was foolish. The guy actually knew nothing about how society would develop, and his guesses were all wrong.

If the government spends plenty of money on education, and its subsidiaries, health and housing, then:-

* the work force will be more efficient

* the possibility of dictatorship, kleptocracy, or oligarchy will be kept at bay.

The dead opposite, actually. People become less efficient when they are not rewarded. And Big Government IS the dictatorship, the kleptocracy and the oligarchy.

Central government is not the same as kleptocracy, nor oligarchy, nor dictatorship.

In every case, it's all three.

[MikeNovack]

But if you are not a New Yorker, explain why it is any of your damned business.

Because the sweat and pain and life force of the tax paying citizens of every state will be the payment that restores NYC when the buses break down, the bodegas are put of business by government stores, and the money from the millionaires and the middle class either runs out or moves on down that lonesome highway.

Are you another one of them there Lefties with only fantasy glue connecting cause to effect?

Then how is what you just said affected by the reality that historically NYC has a large net OUTFLOW to the Federal government. The only recent years not true during COVID.

So you are objecting that under socialism* NYC will not be able to subsidize your state as much?

Might I humbly suggest you tread some of the works by individualist anarchists (right libertarians) and perhaps also of the collectivist anarchist (left libertarians) before you decide what could be called "socialist". THAT is why you are seeing some of us saying, "all are at least somewhat socialist; you are arguing about how much socialism"

* the asterisk because of the history of socialist city government the moves toward what you call socialism slight. Lookup the history of Reading PA.

[Gary Childress]

Not at all. My country has never been Socialist. The most you could say is that it's been broadly a "capitalist" country with a few social programs that are bankrupting it; but you couldn't ever call it Socialist, because Socialism has never been in control of the means of production, which is its fundamental goal, if you know the theory.

Socialist countries, historically, have LOW standards of living, and a high rate of death. And they don't just "tax," but actively attack the whole concept of private property as well.

So the social programs are "bankrupting" the country?

Yep.

If they took away the social programs and let the poor just die on the roadsides, would that be preferable?

That would be bad, too. But there has to be a third alternative: a sustainable balance in medical provision. If there's not, then the system itself will collapse, and EVERYBODY will end up on the roadsides. Would you prefer that?

Third alternative? The third alternative is to welcome socialism and social programs instead of complaining that they are "socialist" and therefore genocidal or whatever it is you deem "socialism". Ineffective social programs and an ineffective capitalist economy aren't necessarily strikes against socialism.