The Agatha Christie murder mystery, "The Mirror Crack'd", is based on exactly that. A famous actress caught the measles while pregnant, and lost her child, and it destroyed her career and her life. Decades later, she announces a comeback, and meets a woman who turned out to be an ardent fan who once had the measles, but went to see her anyway, and hugged her (and was thus responsible for the ruination of her life).
---StrongAxe on 5/4/19|
AXE. I see you using the word fraudsters which is quite ironic as you yourself trust known fraudsters like the far Lefts Fake News (CNN, NYT, WP, etc,) and also corrupt far Left hate groups like DEMS, SPLC, etc.
Your far Left puppet masters would be pleased by you.
---Haz27 on 5/4/19|
We should also consider the birth defects of expectant mothers who have been exposed to the measles. I know of one who's daughter was born blind because of exposure. I'm sure those numbers are extremely high as well.
Also just heard there is now a vaccine for malaria for children. Awesome.
---kathr4453 on 5/4/19|
Naturalnews is a conspiracy website, promoted by known fraudsters InfoWars.
CDC: "Vaccine safety experts, including experts at CDC and the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), agree that MMR vaccine is not responsible for increases in the number of children with autism"
Wikipedia on Measles:
"Vaccination resulted in a 75% decrease in deaths from measles between 2000 and 2013"
"Despite these trends, rates of disease and deaths increased from 2017 to 2019 due to a decrease in immunization."
WHO estimated 630K deaths in 1990, 158K in 2011. One person in 44000 (not just infected people - ALL PEOPLE) dies from measles. Compared to this, 213 vaccine deaths is nothing.
---StrongAxe on 5/4/19|
In the past ten years no one died from the measles disease, but 213 people died from the measles vaccines. Go to the CDC website and open your eyes to the ingredients of vaccines. You'll also read about the side affects of vaccines and pharmaceutical medicines. The MMR vaccine causes autism in children because one of the ingredients was aluminum which accumulated in the child's brain. They replaced the aluminum with mercury two years ago for children under 12 years of age.
Instead of listening to MSM to get your information, do your own research. I suggest starting your research on the naturalnews website. The website has a search field in the upper right hand corner. Just type in the vaccine, pharmaceutical, or ailment.
---Steveng on 5/3/19|
You wrote: They are doing anything in their power to depopulated the world: ... force vaccinations
Please explain to me how vacciations "depopulate the world". They SAVE lives, and prevent THOUSANDS (and sometimes MILLIONS) from dying.
If you REALLY wanted to depopulate the world, the easiest way would be to take away vaccinations and medicines, and let all the plagues of nature take their course (like they did with the Black Death). That is the future that anti-vaxxers are leading us towards.
---StrongAxe on 5/3/19|
STEVENG. You are correct describing the Marxist Left's divisively hateful agenda that's being pushed throughout the Western nations.
FYI I hear many liberals criticising the likes of the DEMs saying that such political parties (formerly seen as "liberal" some decades ago) have been hijacked by the Marxist Left.
It would be more accurate to describe the likes of the DEMs as Leftists or Marxists, instead of liberals.
---Haz27 on 5/3/19|
Many of the elite, including Bill Gates, Ted Turner, Dave Foreman, Mikhail Gorbachev, and many U.S. politicians, believe that the world can sustain only five hundred million people - even the United Nations. This is even being taught at major U.S. universities. They are doing anything in their power to depopulated the world: abortion, force vaccinations, pharmaceutical drugs, global warming, sterilization, etc. Read the first of the 'new 10 commandments' on the Georgia Guidestones. When you see or read such terms as 'sustainable development' and 'reduction of fertility rates' and 'quality of life' and 'one-child policy' you'll know it's about depopulation.
---Steveng on 5/3/19|
You wrote: Liberalism, socialism, etc by any other name is still communism.
No, it is NOT. It's this false equivalency that conservatives have been throwing at people for almost a century now to panic people into voting xenophobic regimes into power. We saw how well that worked in Germany in the '30s, and during the McCarthy era in the '50s, and it's starting now in Brazil too.
---StrongAxe on 5/2/19|
What does any of what you've written have to do with whether trump won or lost, or whether we would be starving or not if he hadn't won? And again, based on what?
---joseph on 5/2/19|
joseph on 5/2/19 wrote: "...And you base this on what, exactly?"
Open your eyes and see what is happening in the U.S. Liberalism, socialism, etc by any other name is still communism. Communism has been infiltrating our government since the 1930s. It's divide and conquer since the 1960s and exponentially since 2008. How many genders do we need? Our founding fathers wrote and spoke about how the Contitution allows people to do whatever they want, but it is the bible that keeps them from doing anything they want.
Read the Communist Manifesto and compare it to what is happening in the U.S. Even the muslims are using it as their playbook.
---Steveng on 5/2/19|
"If he hadn't won, we'd be starving now - like those poor Venezuelans. ---jerry6593 on 5/2/19" And you base this on what, exactly?
---joseph on 5/2/19|
AXE. I know you well enough by now that I see right through your false claims.
You call hate because that's what your hate mongering Leftist masters have done for decades. You're simply imitating their hateful example.
As for your claim of not defending the Left's many evils, we've seen for far to long here that you routinely deflect to redirect debate away from the Left evils.
Even on the Left's baby genocide issue you have even used the Left's justifications for it.
In addition you also push the Left's hateful propaganda lies against Conservatives. And you do this whilst demanding that somehow these propaganda lies are worthy of serious consideration even though they've been proven false.
---Haz27 on 5/2/19|
Haz: Thanks for helping out. Good stuff.
The Axster can't seem to grasp the concept that Socialism is an infectious disease that destroys a nation and murders its people. It would seem that the current example of Venezuela should be a sufficient eye opener. But he continues to regurgitate the same tired leftist talking points without grasping the magnitude of the danger his ideology presents.
England is nearly lost. Canada is on the ropes, and Australia is not far behind. Thank God for Trump in the US. If he hadn't won, we'd be starving now - like those poor Venezuelans.
---jerry6593 on 5/2/19|
I call it hate because you are totally unwilling to listen to any evidence that contradicts what you say. Your desire to hate the left is more important to you than your desire for the truth.
You attribute sins of some to everyone on the left, while totally ignoring evidence of EXACTLY THOSE SAME SINS on the right.
I NEVER defended those evils - only the unjust accusation of those who aren't guilty of them. Because you interpret defense of unjustly accused as defense of evils ALSO proves that you're only interested in scapegoating, and not interested in actual justice.
You also continually parrot stock cliches like "megaphones of society", and that behavior is typical of those who spread propaganda.
---StrongAxe on 5/1/19|
AXE. My opposition (what you call hate) to the Left is simply due to the oppressive Lefts authoritarianism, lies, corruption, genocide, deviancy, hate, racism, sexism, bigotry, Christophobia, greed, inhumanity, etc.
Your defense of such evil proves how effective the Lefts brainwashing is through the megaphones of society (media, Hollywood, academia, FB, Google, politics, etc) that they dominate.
---Haz27 on 5/1/19|
You wrote: Capitalism doesn't require insurance - socialism does.
When you go to the doctor, do you pay all your medical bills out of pocket? If you get cancer, who will pay the hundreds of thousands of dollars for chemo you will need to fix it? You?
Our health care costs would be much lower if we didn't have to deal with all the insurance and bureaucracies, but just had a single provider system, like many other countries have. It's no accident that health care costs in the U.S. are the highest on the planet. Also, it's very curious that **NONE** of the countries that installed single-payer health care systems have EVER repealed it afterwards because it was a bad idea.
---StrongAxe on 5/1/19|
ax: You brainwashed lefties will never get it. Capitalism doesn't require insurance - socialism does. We once had a capitalist society with a pay-as-you-go health care economy. It worked fine and the costs were much lower, since 2/3 of the healthcare costs were not wasted on insurance companies and government red tape. Many healthcare providers are returning to similar cash-based systems because of the hassle that the socialist system requires.
---jerry6593 on 5/1/19|
Thanks Strongaxe, that's true. But let's not forget even homeless children in homeless shelters, or those in Government section 8 housing, or detention centers are given an education. We all believe it is a RIGHT these days, but don't feel that way about healthcare.
And Jerry, many people are born with issues, like the heart etc. So all you can say is PRAISE GOD I'm not like the others born with issues...because I'm better than they are. My my, what would your voice say if you or your newborn was born unhealthy? Put it down like a dog or cat? YIKES!
---kathr4453 on 4/30/19|
Their landlords still own property, and thus pay school taxes too. Do you think they don't pass those costs on to their tenants? The only difference is that the school taxes renters pay are included as part of their rent, rather than being separately assessed by the county.
Under socialism, you pay taxes that pay for other people's health care. Under capitalism, you pay insurance premiums that pay for other people's health care AND profits for insurance company and hospital shareholders AND salaries of bureaucrats whose sole job is to try to deny your claims to increase shareholder profit. Based on U.S. health care costs compared to other countries, the former is cheaper.
---StrongAxe on 4/30/19|
Actually Monk it was so people could learn to read the Bible for themselves. The taxes collected paid for the teachers income...she didn't teach for free. It was a school for all. Just like we see Public education today. Only home owners pay school taxes. So those who rent do not pay school taxes but still go to public schools. I can imagine let's say NY City for example from its inception to today have many renters, who don't pay a school tax, but get a free public education for their children. Now Thomas Jefferson VA focused more on science as things progressed.
Unlike England at that time 1600's and on, only the wealthy could send their children to be educated, ...which obviously excluded to poor., as Strongaxe pointed out.
---kathr4453 on 4/30/19|
Which brings me to my final thought on this subject. If America was ALL WHITE, the schools would not be being stripped of its funding. I have to wonder if it's because NYC has spread around the rest of the country ....meaning multi-cultural, and now we want to defund. The whites are pulling their children out of Public Schools to private or church schools.
And Charter schools are not the answer either. There are many issues in Charter schools. And all these alternative schools do not require teachers to be certified.
---kat453 on 4/30/19|
Sam: You, more than anyone else here, should know that the word "sorceries" in the book of Revelation derives from the Greek "pharmakeia" and thus we are admonished to avoid drugs and live healthful lifestyles. Further, socialism requires disobedience to God's Commandments against theft and covetousness. NOTHING IS FREE! Someone else had to pay for the stuff you get from socialism - via their exorbitant taxes. Health care costs are high precisely because of socialist government policies - not in spite of them.
I keep my health care costs low by keeping myself healthy. Why don't you? It is immoral for you to expect me (or someone else) to pay for your transgression of the laws of your being.
---jerry6593 on 4/30/19|
SAMMUEL. Your spiritual ears and eyes are closed (Matt 13:13-15, 1Cor 2:14) which explains why you fail to understand God's HIDDEN wisdom (1Cor 2:7) in the book of James that you referred to.
I suggest that instead of you aligning yourself with the virtue signalling hypocritical Left who are CORRUPTLY RICH in political power and privilege (remember what Jesus said about such people, Matt 6:1-3), that you actually help the SPIRITUALLY needy lost souls who will be blessed both spiritually and physically if they seek first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness Matt 6:31-33).
---Haz27 on 4/30/19|
Kathr4453 said, " I guess some would say free public education is also socialistic. But it actually began here in 1635 before we became a Nation, in MA by the Puritans and then VA, and so on. The school teachers were paid with TAXES , and one room school houses popped up all over this country."
Kathr, that is NOT a free education. Rather, it was a Puritan education paid for by taxes, as you pointed out. And the "elementary" school was a place for learning LATIN and Greek. Math and science were not considered as necessary as Theology.
---Monk_Brendan on 4/29/19|
Because Republicans are systematically stripping out all checks and balances and trying to return to the unbridled capicalism of Dickensian England, that was characterized by virtual slave labor, including child workhouses - and despite MAGA, if anyone actually wants to return to the days when America was actually greatest (1950s-1970s), they call such people socialists and communists.
Most people in the 1950s-70s didn't need to work 2 jobs to make ends meet. So you think it's acceptable to pay MOST people wages that can't support them. It's nice that managers get paid decently, but what percentage of workers can be managers?
---StrongAxe on 4/29/19|
I guess some would say free public education is also socialistic. But it actually began here in 1635 before we became a Nation, in MA by the Puritans and then VA, and so on. The school teachers were paid with TAXES , and one room school houses popped up all over this country.
I guess this idea would have been considered PROGRESSIVE democratic socialism.
I'm not so sure socialism is gaining in America as much as those who want to MAINTAIN rather than destroy some of these programs.......to what end??? That's the real question....
---kathr4453 on 4/29/19|
Stongeaxe : Numbers of people working two jobs are at 4.9% down from 1990's
How much do you want to pay someone working at WalMart loading shelf's, at entry level Job ? Mangers at some Mc d's - I read can make up to 100.000 a year, Had friends that had start up company's that have done well,
Norway : is a market economy with social programs, a country of 5 million, Health care is paid by the energy sector, also the pension fund, Oil business state own - run by private sector, There rich ! They were doing well before the social programs. People from the scandinavian country's Financailly do better when they move to the U.S - Fun Fact !
---RichardC on 4/28/19|
Dear Jerry you need to do some reading. Socialst systems have much lower costs then we do. Our cost is the highest in the world. Because Big Pharma makes billions of dollars and buys politicians with it. That is why a pill that costs them $5 to make is sold for $500. Where in Europe or Canada you can get it for $10.
Read the Bible. Read the book of James and tell me why you think we should pander to the rich?
---Samuelbb7 on 4/28/19|
No. In all of those "socialist" countries you condemn, health care costs are MUCH LOWER than here. It's ONLY in America, where health care is a private for-profit industry, where heath care is so astronomically high.
Just look at your own numbers. If you have to pay $1M for cancer treatment, and even if the medical providers only get a third of that, that's still $333K, whereas in other countries, the amount would still be much lower.
The free market only works if you have a choice to go elsewhere or not buy. If you're dying, "don't buy" is not a viable choice - or least it shouldn't be.
---StrongAxe on 4/28/19|
David. True you will never the truth on Obamacare from Fox.
But CNN says all the time how great the economy is. So you must never watch CNN.
But at the same time Fox never talks about the Farmers have to beg for money because of the Tariffs. Not the fact that my wife and I had our Social Security cut.
Fox commentators hide the truth. Their actual reporters do state the truth they are allowed to state.
So did you hear Trump changed sides on Vaccinations. Now he says they are needed.
---Samuelbb7 on 4/28/19|
katr: "I believe Democratic Socalism is becoming popular in America because of outrageous cost of healthcare, for starters."
You poor deluded dear. Health care costs are outrageous precisely BECAUSE OF SOCIALIST GOVERNMENT policy. Only one third of HC costs go to medical providers. One third goes to insurance companies and one third goes to the GOVERNMENT.
It's the free market that brings prices down - whether in HC, food, energy or whatever - not the Government. Socialism, in whatever form, or wherever it's tried runs a country bankrupt and the people suffer.
---jerry6593 on 4/28/19|
Bottom line...you have to trust in men. Religion or Politics...we tend to choose a side and trust everything they say as Truth.
I am more aligned with the conservative view, but I do not trust any news source. If I watch CNN, CBS, MSNBC, NBC, Etc....I hear the Liberal slant. If I watch Fox, I get a conservative slant.
Folks are inclined to believe what they want to believe becoming blind to the rest. Obamacare is not all Bad, it has some good points. But you will never hear about it on a conservative News source. The economy under Trump has been an unbelievable success, and yet you will never hear about this on a liberal news source.
Its all designed to create Hatred, so Satan can win your soul.
---David on 4/28/19|
StrongAxe, Obamacare caused the great white coat flight.
Less Doctors for Medicaid and Medicare patients. Many went to private care only.
That's why Kamala Harris and Bernie Sanders said they will abolish private insurance if President.
Think about it? People in Countries with free health care still come to America for medical care.
Free health care doesn't mean getting health care.
The 20 millions are people who didn't want the insurance in the first place.
Under Trump you can drop your insurance with penalties.
People under 35 don't want insurance. Even from their jobs.
The School budget pays well. The Union bosses steals the money from the government and the teachers in union fees.
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/27/19|
The free market makes money - for those who own the capital in the first place. Look at companies like Walmart, Amazon, etc. They pay little to no taxes and make BILLIONS for their shareholders and CEOs, while their employees make minimum wage, and have to take out two to three jobs just to be able to afford rent, and more than half of them are on public assistance because even that isn't enough.
Meanwhile, because those companies can develop cheap market chains, they drive all competition out of business, including smaller mom+pop stores that were trying to make it in the "free market", but are no longer viable because the virtual monopolies of large corporations makes that impossible.
---StrongAxe on 4/27/19|
I believe Democratic Socalism is becoming popular in America because of outrageous cost of healthcare, for starters. The cost of housing... outrageous, and builders are not building much of anything unless it's over 500K, at least in my area. My property taxes have nearly doubled in one year.
People's incomes have not kept up with the rising costs...everyday living costs. So can you blame the younger generation? NO. And who's to blame? I Say it's the greed of the big Pharma etc....profiting off the backs of the middle class .
I just finished watching a DOC on Netflix ...The Mayo Clinic. Oh my gosh was that awesome. The best hospital in the world...was not built on PROFITS for greed, .......so amazing. A must see.
---kathr4453 on 4/26/19|
Strongaxe - Xenophobia : Give me A Break ! No ! It's Pitting one group against another group for Control. The West figure this out a - Long - time ago if you keep breaking down groups ,You end up with the individual, Marxist use groups to Weaponized Compassion with Virtuosi word to get Control ,Because they know most people want to help people, Some believe Blindly in this Ideology, Others just for a Power Grab, Marxist try to blur the line between Socialism and Social Programs,for there own gain. Socialism can only distribute money, Free market makes money, Then up to the people what to do with it !
---RichardC on 4/26/19|
What? Every single health care professional I talked to when I was being treated for leukemia in 2014-2015 thought Obamacare was a GOOD thing. The Congressional Budget Office (i.e. the U.S. government agency whose job it is to evaluate the impact of legislation) determined that under Trumpcare, over 20 million people will lose their health care, and 23000 more people will die.
Betty DeVos is trying to under-fund public schools in order to prove how bad they are, to push private charter schools (that she has a personal stake in). I know quite a few teachers, and many of them have to buy school supplies out of their own pockets because school budgets can't afford them.
---StrongAxe on 4/25/19|
To answer the question, Socialism gained it's current popularity simply because the corrupt Socialist Left dominate academia and thus abuse their trusted positions in universities and schools, etc to brainwash the naive.
The Left's Fake news mainstream media and DEMs also pushes the Socialist Left propaganda.
---Haz27 on 4/25/19|
Kathryn, kinda brings up a good point. Socialism created Unions and thats what brought coal miners out of a slave like state.
I dont care too much for what the Unions became, but I can not deny the value they added to the life of a blue collar worker.
They are not as strong as they once were, but the threat of unionization still keeps the lid on a Greedy business owner. The only problem, in many cases, you now have greedy Union members, which cause the owner to go out of business. Detroit is a perfect example of this.
---David on 4/26/19|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Education
Well, just because Coal miners would rather go back to those conditions rather then live on welfare doesn't make it right. BUT Nicole, the Coal Mining Industry WOULD NOT be run that way today.....so again, your bouncing off the walls not reading and processing what people are saying. We all know that is not your strong point ....so we try to work around it Nicole.
There were strikes often because of horrible wages and horrible living conditions. But what it showed was GREEDY Capitolism at its worst. And not all, but we still see this in the world today...and it's NOT CHRISTIAN.....READ JAMES 5.
---kathr4453 on 4/26/19|
Kathr: I wonder what the old time Coal Mining towns feel about being WORKING CLASS FOLKS..//
No need to wonder. They told us when they voted for TRUMP!
Samuel: The dependency is created by not paying a living wage.//
Settle WA gave a living wage and guess what happen? Many became unemployed.
//By putting high costs on health insurance//
Thank Obama, Now more don't have HI.
//keeping people uneducated by taking funds away from schools//
??? Where is that going on? It's against the law not to educate your child.
Teacher's Union (Democrat ran) plan got more money in the last 45 years when Carter made it a Cabinet position. But they put out the dumbest kids ever in our Country's history.
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/25/19|
I wonder what the old time Coal Mining towns feel about being WORKING CLASS FOLKS owned by the mining companies as far as housing, pay etc. Abject poverty and no health care. They weren't even allowed to own their homes. Many paid in company money not US DOLLARS, that kept these folks as a slave force to big industry. Yep, a perversion of Capitalism.
---kathr4453 on 4/25/19|
The dependency is created by not paying a living wage. By putting high costs on health insurance and keeping people uneducated by taking funds away from schools.
Also putting poison into the air and water to save the rich money.
Socialism has not failed in may countries. Because it is not true socialism. It is a democracy that cares about the people. Not a dictatorship. Read some real history.
---Samuelbb7 on 4/25/19|
David, for the last decade and more, I've lived in subsidized housing.---Cluny on 4/24/19
Apples and Oranges. You are probably there for health or age related reasons. You are being helped by the system you paid into, not a system that has formed your life.There are many folks who end up living their whole life in a system meant only to give them a little help.
When this is allowed to continue, it ruins lives...ruins families, by creating this dependency, Generation after Generation in many cases.
---David on 4/25/19|
David, for the last decade and more, I've lived in subsidized housing.
Christ is risen!
---Cluny on 4/24/19|
Identity politics? Tribalism? That's exactly what Republican "build the wall!" xenophobia is all about!
You wrote: Look at the housing projects, a microcosm of the socialist society. Do you folks who believe in socialism, think this example is proof of success or failure?
Which would you prefer? A bunch of people living in run-down housing projects, or those same people sleeping on the street and eating out of garbage cans?
---StrongAxe on 4/24/19|
Republicans (big "champions of states' rights") refuse states' rights to legalize medical cannabis despite its proven benefits.
Trump only switched to Republican because he thought Republicans would be more likely to like him.
Sometimes the rules are manipulated by evil people towards evil ends. Republicans deliberately gerrymander districts so they can win with only 30% of the popular vote. Hitler was legally elected to rule Germany. "by peace shall destroy many" (Daniel 8:25) is using the rules for a bad end. Republicans are passing laws that legally take away millions of people's health cares, which WILL kill thousands.
---StrongAxe on 4/23/19|
Strongaxe You really need to research out : Democratic Socialist of America, and what there all about, They talk about control of production, they talk about doctors being control by the state,Also look into identity politics, tribalism, It's all over the place right now, , Marxist - Proletariat vs, Bourgeois - Now class against class, not the individual,
Early Church : Your talking about a small group of people with the same morals, Not 400 million people with different views,
Bernie Sanders , Is down to 52% from 70 % - his income 2016 - 1,062,626 $ donated 10,600 $ ( The American dream is easier to reach in Venezuela than the US )
Can people with Low income be greedy ?
---RichardC on 4/24/19|
Like I was trying to say before...The problem with Socialism, is its attempt to override the psychology of man. A beautiful sentiment...but look the examples of where it has been tried...here in America.
Look at the housing projects, a microcosm of the socialist society. Do you folks who believe in socialism, think this example is proof of success or failure?
Seattle Washington is a bigger example. You wont see the media report on it...go there in person...and see what socialism had done to a once beautiful city. If you do...wear boots so the human waste littering the sidewalks doesnt ruin your shoes.
---David on 4/24/19|
ax: "Note that in Rome emperors issued edicts, over which citizens had NO control."
Sounds just like the police state tactics of socialist countries. Why would anyone in their right mind want such a system - especially in free America? I guess Democrats aren't in their right minds.
Nicole: "Why can't Democrats play by the rules instead of changing the rules?"
Because they have lost the ability to discern between right and wrong. Why else would they embrace socialist policies that employ the sins of theft and covetousness.
---jerry6593 on 4/24/19|
StrongAxe, Republicans hate when Democratic bypass/ignore the Constitution when making law.
Democrats are always trying to take away rights and making rights that doesn't exist.
Such as Sanctuary State and cities for Illegals. But whine when Trump offers to transport Illegals to their area free of charge.
//Compare how Trump hated the Electoral College, but suddenly loved it when it handed him the Presidency.//
Of course. He hated it when he was a Democrat.
Trump became the President because he PLAYED by the RULES. He went to all the States allowing everyone the say so in WHO will be the President. Just as the Founders designed it.
Why can't Democrats play by the rules instead of changing the rules?
---Nicole_Lacey on 4/23/19|
I don't complain about which days are kept - that's YOUR beef.
Note that in Rome emperors issued edicts, over which citizens had NO control.
In America, the PEOPLE vote for representatives, and those representatives, who (allegedly) represent the will of the PEOPLE enact the laws that the PEOPLE have empowered them to enact. If you don't like the laws that they enact, you have only yourselves to blame.
I also find it curious that whenever Congress passes laws Republicans love, they extol the Democratic process, but when it passes laws they hate, they whine about tyranny. Compare how Trump hated the Electoral College, but suddenly loved it when it handed him the Presidency.
---StrongAxe on 4/23/19|
ax: "The early church was 100% collectivist, pooling all their resources"
This was 100% by choice - not by Roman edict. They were also 100% Seventh-day Sabbath keeping. Why don't you do that as well?
---jerry6593 on 4/23/19|
You wrote: Were has Socialism ever work ? Norway, Ireland, New Zealand etc, are market economy's with social programs, most heavily tax
This is the whole disingenuous "apples and oranges" argument from the right - when Norway wants to do it, they're careful to say "But that isn't socialism" but when America wants to do exactly the same thing, they call it "EVIL SOCIALISM!"
Collectivism eventually leads to, death, destruction, coercion, tyranny
The early church was 100% collectivist, pooling all their resources, with no private ownership. Were they wrong?
---StrongAxe on 4/21/19|
Were has Socialism ever work ? Norway, Ireland, New Zealand etc, are market economy's with social programs, most heavily tax, Collectivism eventually leads to, death, destruction, coercion, tyranny,
Because a person is very Successful, What gives anyone the right to steal from them, ? Steve Jobs, Jeff bozos started in there garages, Hoarding money ? I though what people like this did is investment and expanding the economy,
The Question should be finding why people are failing . Not just ripping off other people because the mob thinks so ! By confiscation how can there be freedom ?
Strong Axe : More than just rent for the exodus in California and New York, What have both in common, Democrat , Progressive,
---RichardC on 4/21/19|
David, fwiw, there was an Australian named Haz who used to post here.
Apparently in Australia, "social security" means "welfare", and he didn't know what it meant in the USA.
Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 4/20/19|
I said early Christians held things in common by CHOICE. They weren't ALL in agreement. See Ananias and Sapphira. Yes, they lied, but that wouldn't have happened if they didn't disagree, and didn't feel pressured to conform).
Choices made by our country are made by our ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES. I find it amazing how Republicans gloat over Trump's victory and tell Democrats to "live with it", requiring us to like electoral choices that go their way, while simultaneously disavowing responsibility for electoral choices that don't.
I didn't say socialist GOVERNMENT. I said socialist POLICIES like welfare and health care. Stop blaming me for YOUR inability to read.
---StrongAxe on 4/20/19|
Did I say as social security check was the same as a welfare check? NO.
I was simply comparing the psychological effect it has on folks. Didnt say it to offend anyone.
People want to retire after many years of work, and the money they receive in social security, I see, as their money.....not a handout. Does this make them bums? No.
If they dont want to work, they deserve a break after so many years.
---David on 4/20/19|
ax: You are so bainwashed that you can't see the contradictions in your own argument. The early Christians held all things in common by CHOICE - NOT FORCE. We Americans are not in agreement, nor do we choose Socialism - it requires police state FORCE to implement socialism.
Our legislators may not enact a socialist government if they choose (as you assert). They are bound, not by their leftist propensities, but rather by our Constitution which they have SWORN to uphold. But how would a foreigner like you know that?
---jerry6593 on 4/20/19|
strongaxe said, "You forget that the early church kept ALL THINGS IN COMMON with no private ownership - not only socialism, but outright communism. They did this by mutual agreement."
---john9346 on 4/20/19|
You wrote: Your FALSE PREMISE that you want the good form of socialism - not the bad - ignores the reality that ALL socialism requires the breaking of the Christian proscription against stealing and coveting.
You forget that the early church kept ALL THINGS IN COMMON with no private ownership - not only socialism, but outright communism. They did this by mutual agreement.
We elect our government representatives, so if they enact socialist policies like welfare and health care, they do so WITH OUR PERMISSION AND AUTHORITY.
You hate that. You would have REALLY hated the early church!
You don't like covetousness? That's what hoarding wealth is.
---StrongAxe on 4/19/19|
I agree with Steveng, we paid into social security because we WORKED all these years and paid into this retirement plan out of our hard earned income. It's not welfare , and I resent anyone who says it is. I'm also retired, work PT, do a lot of volunteer work and help with my Grandchildren after school. Folks who have not retired yet make such silly comments.
Also we have welfare reform, so it's not so easy to get on and stay on welfare. It's not a retirement program either, because you can't just stay on it till you die. But it is there when someone hits hard times. I guess places like Russia would just let you starve in the streets.
---kathr4453 on 4/19/19|
Social security is not like welfare, we pay into it. It's our money to begin with.
And another thing, just because you retire that doesn't mean you become a couch potato. I suggest to everyone I know to plan your retirement doing something whether it's a hobby, part time work or volunteer. I'm reaching 70 years and still active. I still do a lot of tutoring, been doing it for over forty years, roller skate for ten hours a week, Ice skate three days a week for three hours a day, go out dancing, hang out with friends, meet new people wherever I go.
Since I don't have a family to take care of me in my old age, I rely on my social security checks. I lead a very simple lifestyle.
---Steveng on 4/18/19|
Yes, and if you actually do the math, that's the average tax rate you would end up with with a marginal tax bracket at the high end - the AVERAGE tax rate for one's entire income would be closer to 40%. If you look at Bernie Sanders' proposal, the tax rate is 10% up to to $20K, 15% up to $75K, and 33% up to $250K - just like the current tax rate. It only starts to ramp up higher for people who make over $250K. Nobody who makes over $250K will starve because they pay $80K in taxes.
The reason people can't afford to live in California, NYC, and other large cities isn't because of high taxes - it's because expenses like rent, etc. are astronomically high.
---StrongAxe on 4/17/19|
Socialism means well, but it doesnt take into account the nature of men. Social Security is a perfect example. What happens when we are able to get a Social Security check after working for many years? We quit work and retire.
A welfare check has the same effect for many of those who are on welfare. It becomes a retirement check.
Now since those on welfare dont have to work for a living, they have a lot of idle time. What do they do with that time? Go visit a government housing project for your answer. Seattle and San Francisco have expanded those checks to include the homeless, and look at the results.
As I said, well meaning..but socialism....by helping, is actually destroying these folks lives.
---David on 4/18/19|
ax: Your FALSE PREMISE that you want the good form of socialism - not the bad - ignores the reality that ALL socialism requires the breaking of the Christian proscription against stealing and coveting. If the majority of your neighbors agree to break into the rich neighbor's mansion and steal his stuff, is that OK with you? You call it Democratic Socialism, but its real name is MOB RULE.
Socialism, in whatever form, always requires police state FORCE in order to achieve compliance with its Utopian world view. The result is always the same - millions murdered.
We do NOT owe you free health care. Go back to Canada and wait for them to decide your fate. America protects the individual - not the collective.
---jerry6593 on 4/18/19|
StrongAxe : Once again during that point in time 50's and 60's the tax code was different, the people in that high margin rate had a lot of loop holes, real estate ,depreciation ,loan expenses, so people end up in the 40% range, that's why the economic picture was probably good , High marginal rates = low productivity growth,
So let's tax the rich more : Look what happen in France in 2016 - mass exodus
New york : Mass exodus has already started, The rich are leaving because of taxes, Gov.Cuomo : Say's this is a real as a heart attack ! 41% of people in the five boroughs say they can't live there any more, Wait till they get the bill for free Health Care !
---RichardC on 4/17/19|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Stocks
Yes, the projected price tag for Medicare for All would be $33 trillion over 10 years. That sounds pretty frightening - until you ALSO calculate the price we would pay by just continuing the way we are currently going. According to the government CMS office (Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services), our costs for health care would be $45 trillion - so the new plan would SAVE us $12 trillion.
Which would you rather do - pay $33 trillion in taxes to the government so everyone can get health care, or $45 trillion in premiums to private insurance companies so some people can get health care, and those companies can get rich?
---StrongAxe on 4/16/19|
You wrote: Ok A Hypothetical : We tax the rich a the 70% Leaves the rich with 30 cents on the dollar
Again, that is the red herring capitalists throw up to try to instil fear into people. That's NOT how it works AT ALL.
A 70% marginal tax rate does not mean ALL income is taxed at 70% - only income ABOVE $10 MILLION. Income below $10M is taxed at progressively lower rates. For example, the first $10-20K is taxed at zero (your personal exemption), then everything from there up to around $75K is taxed at 10-15%, and so on up.
We had a 90% top tax rate in the 1950s-60s, and the country was at its most prosperous. We even went to the moon! Capitalists weren't whining about being poor.
---StrongAxe on 4/16/19|
Ok A Hypothetical : We tax the rich a the 70% Leaves the rich with 30 cents on the dollar, I think the number out there on this is 72 billion, Ten years that's 720 billion, what do you want to do with the money ? How about Health care, Universal for all, Price Tag 32.6 Trillion for ten years, Better get ready for a historic tax increase,
What Democratic Socialism is, Voting in Socialism, your voting in a Ideology, I don't have something so I can steal your wallet, It's a redistribution of wealth, And were will that end first the guy with 10 mill now, Then guy with 100,000 and down ward . Social program am all for helping people, But they are way to different things,
---RichardC on 4/15/19|
The rich did NOT pay "90% of their income" in the 50s and 60s. In the 50s and 60s, the highest tax BRACKET was around 90%. This means that the first part of it (i.e. your deductions, maybe $10-20K) is taxed at 0%, then the next few thousands are taxed at a slightly higher rate, then the next few, and so on. Under her proposal, only income that was ACTUALLY above 10 million dollars would be taxed at 70%. Under highest tax rates of 70% and 90%, the rich STILL get to keep rich, not just quite a filthy rich as under Reagan's lowered tax rates (and especially not the new Republican plan, under which many multi-billion corporations pay NO tax at all).
---StrongAxe on 4/15/19|
|Read These Insightful Articles About Diabetes
Rich paying 90% income in the fifty's and sixty's : Now that statement is all over the place these day's AOC is using it, and it is a False Statement ! The tax income was 91% in the 50's , The tax code was different back then, Even though the marginal rates was high , No One , Repeat No One pay 91% The top 1% pay at it highest point payed 42% , about what it is today, Today top rich 20% in the country pay 90% of the federal income tax.
---RichardC on 4/15/19|
The very blog topic is disingenuous, as it is based on a false premise - just as "have you stopped beating your wife?" which assumes you HAVE been beating your wife - both "yes" and "no" condemn you.
Leftists don't want COMMUNISM or SOCIALISM. They want DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM. These are three COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. They don't want to eliminate private ownership. They just don't want the rich to constantly throw the poor under the bus.
Sanders and AOC don't understand economics?! Republicans passed 1.6 trillion tax cut for the rich, and increased the deficit by 2 trillion - yet blame Social Security, rather their own ruinous policies.
---StrongAxe on 4/14/19|
Socialism is looking for the Utopian Society :
But it will never happen in this world, and taking , Stealing and to covet people property goes against the Ten Commandments ,
Matthew 26:11 - For ye have always the poor with you, but me ye have not always
The word Inequality is use a lot these day's and needs to be address as best as possible, But it always going to be with us.
Capitalism , there is corruption and unevenness does happen, But people think Socialism going to be any different ?
People looking for equally in income , Who's going to measure it ?
---RichardC on 4/14/19|