56 minutes ago, The Jabbawookie said:

For the record, I don't think you're selfish, callous, uncaring, or attempting to destroy the country.

I think you either want fundamentally different things from society and government than me, or have a flawed understanding of how they function.

This discussion seems to have run its course, arriving more or less where expected.

I don’t think he’s trying to destroy the country either. I just think I don’t understand what sort of country he believes in.

I have enjoyed Armada for a time, I have nothing but high regards for the individuals who brought these games to life and wish them well in their futures.

@BigPoppaPalpatine i gotta say, i somewhat agree with @The Jabbawookie s and @Cpt ObVus s perception of your position. I also think that this discussion has been surprisingly civil and insightful until the starting of personal insults, which did not really came from their side. You know, to me it too feels like every time someone makes a pretty long, well argued point that criticizes capitalism you immediately react with a rather short, and *facepalm*-like attitude as if we were just too dumb to understand what we are criticizing. Also, since most of our criticisms of capitalism are based on the advocation of the concepts of "empathy" and "fairness" and you almost never actually reply to those things but rather choose to respond to the technicalities of whats supposedly economically possible for a company, it just comes off across as if you have more interest in their wellbeing than in that of the employees. I'm not saying that you do actually have that position, but im trying to explain why it feels like it. Also, i do actually care about understanding your position and i do not want to just put blame on you without understanding the context of your arguements, so thats why im writing this. I would be glad if we could return to a peaceful und friendly discussion, since i enjoyed this threat and the insightful arguements many gave.

8 hours ago, Cpt ObVus said:

I don’t think he’s trying to destroy the country either. I just think I don’t understand what sort of country he believes in.

No, I understand clearly what I believe. Your whole argument comes down to hiding behind victims like single mothers. If I don't believe what you believe, then I'm a terrible person.

Never did you ask why the single mother rate was so high. Never did you ask why it has increased so much over decades. You just think that the government throwing other people's money at the problem is the answer. You also think you are morally superior for doing it.

People make choices. Under your thinking, people can make all the bad choices that they want, and it's the governments job to solve it. Meanwhile, people who make good choices pay for it.

Then you have to consider this idea that you know better than everyone else what to do with their money. So, you have a right to it. When does it end? When is enough? It's all up to you, because your the arbiter of all that is good. Whenever we have a problem, just go back to the well of other people's money. You only have a hammer, and everything is a nail.

2 hours ago, >kkj said:

@BigPoppaPalpatine i gotta say, i somewhat agree with @The Jabbawookie s and @Cpt ObVus s perception of your position. I also think that this discussion has been surprisingly civil and insightful until the starting of personal insults, which did not really came from their side.

Dude, I was insulted from the beginning of this by being told I have to take a civics class. Different person, but then others start jumping in. And anyone who takes advantage of capitalism is greedy according to multiple people on this thread. I think you all have a pretty negative view of others who disagree with you. That's fine, but don't expect me to be nice then.

6 hours ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Under your thinking, people can make all the bad choices that they want, and it's the governments job to solve it. Meanwhile, people who make good choices pay for it.

This is utter nonsense. Noone here ever proposed something like that. This is just the typical knee-jerk reaction when someone criticizes inequality. All this thread long we have been argueing about creating equal starting positions, that means compensation for people that are in a worse position in life than others because of factors they cannot control . Like who your ancestors were and what they did or didn't do. Where you have been born. Which genetical dispositions you have.

This is where that whole "its fine to inherit wealth because somebody back in the past worked for it"-arguement falls on its head. Because with that kind of logic its totally fine to blame poor people that they are poor because their ancestors "just didn't work hard enough". Wow what a bad, evil choice to been born into the wrong environment.

I don't think you actually have any abstract concept of justice or fairness. The only concept of justice you seem to know is "kill or be killed". You dont even want to know how inefficient and unlikely that concept is in getting yourself what you need in life. Fine then. But that concept only works until you too get ****** by the injustice that exist in the world and maybe then you will have some sympathy with those that had no fault in their own misery.

With that being said i will now follow @Ling27 s advice and back out of the conversation with you, since it seems to be pretty pointless.

2 hours ago, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

No, I understand clearly what I believe. Your whole argument comes down to hiding behind victims like single mothers. If I don't believe what you believe, then I'm a terrible person.

Never did you ask why the single mother rate was so high. Never did you ask why it has increased so much over decades. You just think that the government throwing other people's money at the problem is the answer. You also think you are morally superior for doing it.

People make choices. Under your thinking, people can make all the bad choices that they want, and it's the governments job to solve it. Meanwhile, people who make good choices pay for it.

Then you have to consider this idea that you know better than everyone else what to do with their money. So, you have a right to it. When does it end? When is enough? It's all up to you, because your the arbiter of all that is good. Whenever we have a problem, just go back to the well of other people's money. You only have a hammer, and everything is a nail.

I just spent a long time typing a very detailed response, and the internet ate it. So, bullet points.

People make choices. Some of them I like, some of them I don’t. Some of them you like, some of them you don’t. Some are well-considered and work out badly, others are ill-advised and work out well. You and I are not the arbiters of right and wrong, good and bad (if you think we are, then it’s you who is moralizing, not me).

The simple fact is that people get into (or are born into) tight spots sometimes, and need help. I believe the government has an important (limited) responsibility to help its citizens with housing, food, health care, and opportunity. Current measures are insufficient. If they were, I believe this would lead to a safer, stronger, healthier, happier, more stable society.

I believe the concentration of wealth at the top of the pyramid is the opposite of that. It’s not sustainable, it’s not equitable, and it leads to an unstable, unhappy, unsafe, unhealthy society.

I believe we can afford to remedy the problems inherent in the lack of privilege by solving the problem of outsized privilege. I believe it is the government’s obligation to do so, and it is (probably) best done by redistribution of wealth through taxes and social welfare programs. I don’t think that the middle class and the poor would even need to contribute to higher taxes, if the rich and their corporations were actually made to pay disproportionately, and without loopholes. This is not an uncommon idea; if it were, we would not have the term “tax bracket.”

I’ve asked a lot of questions of you over my last few posts. You haven’t answered any of the tough ones. If we’re gonna get anywhere, I need you to do that. So:

What are the obligations of a government to its citizens, specifically concerning health, housing, and opportunity?

What are the obligations of a citizen to their government, specifically concerning taxes?

Do you think that Americans are best served by the system as it stands today? Do you think America is on a stable, sustainable path?

You’ve had a lot to say to refute my position, but you’ve said relatively little about yours. You’ve said I was wrong when I said your positions seemed callous and uncaring (well, “wrong” wasn’t exactly the words you used). But what’s your solution then? We keep funneling wealth to the top, and Hope against all reason that trickle-down economics starts actually working?

I mean, I assume you work, and I assume you work hard. Maybe you have a boss, maybe you don’t, but I assume you have had one in the past. Did that guy work 300 times harder than you? Was he 300 times smarter? More valuable? Did he earn 300 times your pay? And maybe it wasn’t a direct supervisor, but was there someone up the chain that had that sort of position? Do you really feel that their job, at the time, deserved 300 times the compensation yours did?

Even if you’re okay with that kind of wealth gap, it isn’t sustainable. America won’t last this way.

8 minutes ago, Cpt ObVus said:

What are the obligations of a citizen to their government, specifically concerning taxes?

Pay them. Without money, the country would fall into disrepair, unless there's less government. (I'm in Indianapolis, we had a Libertarian run for mayor, he pointed out that with less government, they would get rid of the income tax.) Having everyone pay the same basic tax would be equal, but more if you've hit a certain amount of wealth. 2 million?

@BigPoppaPalpatine "People worked for their original capital" is absolutely ahistorical. Even from a mainstream lens within capitalism. But since I'm a dirty pinko commie:

Have you ever heard of the concept of primitive accumulation? Or accumulation by dispossession? Or surplus labor value? These are foundational concepts in marxist theory, and if you want to be taken seriously, you need to understand basic concepts about the thing you're criticizing. You don't have to agree, but you do have to know basic concepts. Because I'm not a liberal who says "take a civics course" here are helpful links. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to discuss them here.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surplus_value#:~:text=According to Marx's theory%2C surplus,profit when products are sold.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Primitive_accumulation_of_capital

Also you're giving away the game a bit talking about single mothers and "Good choices, bad choices" It absolutely reeks of Calvinist Just World Theory. An Albert Einstein born to work in a sweatshop or be a child soldier may elevate himself somewhat through personal merit, but will never live in such abundance as a failson like Donald Trump Jr. or Hunter Biden. There is a phrase that liberals say in arguing against socialism. That they want "equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome" but socialists also do not want equality of outcome. We argue that there is not equality of opportunity , and that lacking equality of opportunity leads to a greater equality of outcome for the vast majority of human beings. Your defense of inheritance for example, is a defense of an inequality of opportunity.

Also, there is nothing wrong with being a single mother? Having sex is okay, choosing to keep an accidental pregnancy is okay, leaving a partner is okay. They're only harmful to women and children within capitalism because of the commodification of women under capitalism. It isn't the natural way of things, it's artificial. If your library stocks it, I highly recommend reading "Why Women Have Better Sex Under Socialism: And Other Arguments for Economic Independence" by Kristen Ghodsee. Or find an independent seller. Or feed the beast and buy from amazon if you must. Although at that point you might as well just pirate it.

If you're making the argument that people should subsume really personal family choices to whatever is the most economically viable, no one would get pregnant, and we'd all be packed in like sardines into polycules so N incomes can only have one mortgage or rent payment to worry about.

actually I'm off to never get pregnant and get packed into an N income household, see you suckers

On 11/22/2020 at 7:42 AM, BigPoppaPalpatine said:

Sigh. The lie that CEOs are lazy again...

The average CEO works 60 hours a week.

I would agree that a lot of CEOs work 60 hours a week. However, they do have a vastly different lifestyle.

I am college educated and salaried. I work 50+ hours a week on average. I make a good income, but no where near what a CEO makes. I would work more hours...but my work day does not end when I go home...

For any CEO making over 1 million per year income...

Do you think those CEOs do their own laundry every week?

Do think those CEOs do their own cooking every night?

Do you think those CEOs do their own home repairs or remodeling?

Do you think they raise and attend to their children the same way the rest of us non-executives do?

It is easy for them to work 60 hours a week because they can afford things taken care of.

I come home and my gf had a last minute appointment...I better start diner. Kitchen sink is not draining well...I cannot not see paying a plumber over $1,000 to fix the drain issue when I can use that money for other more important things...guess there goes my Saturday while I do my own plumbing. Oh wait, my tenant just called and has an issue with their stove. Guess the sink will have to wait another week because I do not make enough rent income off my one duplex to pay someone else to manage it...

Those CEOs have a vastly different lifestyle when they go home. So, yes they can afford to work 60 hours a week or more because all the other little things are taken care of for them. They wouldn't even think twice to pay that plumber because $1000 to them is pennies.

Best part is, while they are working those 60 hours they are strategizing how to steer the company in a way that best benefits their bonus, regardless of how it impacts the rest of us peons. And if they suck and get fired, they are paid millions in a golden parachute clause...while I can get walked out and any time with severance being optional (depending on the company's policy and belief) and unemployment being nowhere near enough to pay all my bills.

This country has a serious issue with executive greed and my father correctly predicted in the 80's it was only going to get worse if something was not done. He was right. The gap between average worker pay and CEO pay has exponentially widden to ridiculous extremes.

2 minutes ago, HawkZ71 said:

I would agree that a lot of CEOs work 60 hours a week. However, they do have a vastly different lifestyle.

I am college educated and salaried. I work 50+ hours a week on average. I make a good income, but no where near what a CEO makes. I would work more hours...but my work day does not end when I go home...

For any CEO making over 1 million per year income...

Do you think those CEOs do their own laundry every week?

Do think those CEOs do their own cooking every night?

Do you think those CEOs do their own home repairs or remodeling?

Do you think they raise and attend to their children the same way the rest of us non-executives do?

It is easy for them to work 60 hours a week because they can afford things taken care of.

I come home and my gf had a last minute appointment...I better start diner. Kitchen sink is not draining well...I cannot not see paying a plumber over $1,000 to fix the drain issue when I can use that money for other more important things...guess there goes my Saturday while I do my own plumbing. Oh wait, my tenant just called and has an issue with their stove. Guess the sink will have to wait another week because I do not make enough rent income off my one duplex to pay someone else to manage it...

Those CEOs have a vastly different lifestyle when they go home. So, yes they can afford to work 60 hours a week or more because all the other little things are taken care of for them. They wouldn't even think twice to pay that plumber because $1000 to them is pennies.

Best part is, while they are working those 60 hours they are strategizing how to steer the company in a way that best benefits their bonus, regardless of how it impacts the rest of us peons. And if they suck and get fired, they are paid millions in a golden parachute clause...while I can get walked out and any time with severance being optional (depending on the company's policy and belief) and unemployment being nowhere near enough to pay all my bills.

This country has a serious issue with executive greed and my father correctly predicted in the 80's it was only going to get worse if something was not done. He was right. The gap between average worker pay and CEO pay has exponentially widden to ridiculous extremes.

Some reading on the devaluing of household labor, because you bring up a really good point;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism#Productive,_unproductive,_and_reproductive_labor

I'm not aware of any literature on how men taking an increasing share of it has affected things, in case you have any recommendations, although this is worrying

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/10/21271170/coronavirus-great-recession-2020-pandemic-women-covid

Based on the most recent IRS data (2017), the top 1% of earners (incomes over $515,371) pay 39% of income taxes, which is nearly double their percentage of the nation Adjusted Gross Income. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all income taxes, and the tp 50% of earners paid 97%. In short, the U.S. tax code is very progressive.

The difference between the U.S. and the European countries with greater social welfare benefits is that taxes in the European countries start at much lowers levels of income. Thus, everyone from the lower middle class upwards pays significant income taxes in exchange for more benefits. Thus a majority of people in those countries have skin in the game and want to see good governance and effective policies.

In the United States, the left has pushed the false notion that every social program could be extravagantly funded if only the rich paid their fair share. Newsflash, as Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money. The reality is that the left in the U.S. does not want to be candid about the level of middle class taxes that are necessary to support its program because it would be political suicide.

Moreover, there is a direct decline in innovation as government takes over sectors of the economy or implements confiscatory taxation. There is a reason that the United States accounts for a lions share of world's patents in the medical field. It is also not a shock that the COVID vaccines were primarily developed by United States companies.

And this is why modern far right Conservatism is considered “regressive.” The wealth gap has actually widened to such an absurd degree that it looks like Medieval lords and serfs all over again. If America were truly the land of opportunity, why would the lower class be so massive? Why would so many choose to live hand-to-mouth, if all they had to do was some plucky bootstrapping and hustle a bit, and make their millions?

Because that’s not how it works. The playing field is tilted so far against most people that it’s absolutely crushing. Most people are not able to climb very far on the economic ladder, and those who do are often just one health crisis or housing bubble from ruin.

8 minutes ago, postje said:

Based on the most recent IRS data (2017), the top 1% of earners (incomes over $515,371) pay 39% of income taxes, which is nearly double their percentage of the nation Adjusted Gross Income. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all income taxes, and the tp 50% of earners paid 97%. In short, the U.S. tax code is very progressive.

The difference between the U.S. and the European countries with greater social welfare benefits is that taxes in the European countries start at much lowers levels of income. Thus, everyone from the lower middle class upwards pays significant income taxes in exchange for more benefits. Thus a majority of people in those countries have skin in the game and want to see good governance and effective policies.

In the United States, the left has pushed the false notion that every social program could be extravagantly funded if only the rich paid their fair share. Newsflash, as Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money. The reality is that the left in the U.S. does not want to be candid about the level of middle class taxes that are necessary to support its program because it would be political suicide.

Moreover, there is a direct decline in innovation as government takes over sectors of the economy or implements confiscatory taxation. There is a reason that the United States accounts for a lions share of world's patents in the medical field. It is also not a shock that the COVID vaccines were primarily developed by United States companies.

The problem with Margaret Thatcher's grave is that you eventually run out of ****

When you're quoting a woman who funded deathsquads in northern Ireland, you need to stop a moment and think for a second, "Hanz, are we the baddies?"

Even ignoring the deathsquads, Thatcher's legacy speaks for itself. But this scottish woman is much more eloquent than I could ever be:

11 minutes ago, postje said:

Based on the most recent IRS data (2017), the top 1% of earners (incomes over $515,371) pay 39% of income taxes, which is nearly double their percentage of the nation Adjusted Gross Income. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all income taxes, and the tp 50% of earners paid 97%. In short, the U.S. tax code is very progressive.

The difference between the U.S. and the European countries with greater social welfare benefits is that taxes in the European countries start at much lowers levels of income. Thus, everyone from the lower middle class upwards pays significant income taxes in exchange for more benefits. Thus a majority of people in those countries have skin in the game and want to see good governance and effective policies.

In the United States, the left has pushed the false notion that every social program could be extravagantly funded if only the rich paid their fair share. Newsflash, as Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money. The reality is that the left in the U.S. does not want to be candid about the level of middle class taxes that are necessary to support its program because it would be political suicide.

Moreover, there is a direct decline in innovation as government takes over sectors of the economy or implements confiscatory taxation. There is a reason that the United States accounts for a lions share of world's patents in the medical field. It is also not a shock that the COVID vaccines were primarily developed by United States companies.

When the top 1% is paying more like 90%+ of the taxes, we’re getting somewhere. They hold 90%+ of the wealth, right?

And as I’ve repeatedly said, I’m willing to do my part. If I could pay 10% more, and JUST see national socialized health care, I’d probably be willing. And 10% more from everyone is a lot of money. ****, 3% from everyone would be oodles of cash.

The other thing is that we need to curb military spending and corporate welfare. Substantially. Among, probably, other initiatives. We waste a lot of money fighting the last war, militarily speaking. And we don’t need to be bailing out corporations so they can vastly overpay their executives, give them ever-increasing bonuses, and then cut them loose with golden parachutes.

25 minutes ago, ExplosiveTooka said:

Some reading on the devaluing of household labor, because you bring up a really good point;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxist_feminism#Productive,_unproductive,_and_reproductive_labor

I'm not aware of any literature on how men taking an increasing share of it has affected things, in case you have any recommendations, although this is worrying

https://www.vox.com/2020/6/10/21271170/coronavirus-great-recession-2020-pandemic-women-covid

I took a "Gender & Care-Work" course back in university this year that talked exactly about that issue. Basically, woman are nowadays doing double duty, full-time working and still doing the housework and kids-raising for the biggest part. Woman have moved closer to a middle ground between traditional gender-roles while men have stayed more or less exactly where they were before. There is some slow progression but its far from the majority. It is well researched. This problem really showed especially during the current Corona pandemic, where - yet again - its mostly woman who stay at home, do homeoffice and at the same time work fulltime as parents and householders.

Also regarding the devaluation of "non-paid work", there is ton of feminist literature about it. I think there is a strong case to be made for all work that is vital for society to funtion to be paid. That also includes raising kids, doing the household, cooking, emotional and social support, etc.

19 minutes ago, postje said:

Based on the most recent IRS data (2017), the top 1% of earners (incomes over $515,371) pay 39% of income taxes, which is nearly double their percentage of the nation Adjusted Gross Income. The top 10% of earners paid 70% of all income taxes, and the tp 50% of earners paid 97%. In short, the U.S. tax code is very progressive.

The difference between the U.S. and the European countries with greater social welfare benefits is that taxes in the European countries start at much lowers levels of income. Thus, everyone from the lower middle class upwards pays significant income taxes in exchange for more benefits. Thus a majority of people in those countries have skin in the game and want to see good governance and effective policies.

In the United States, the left has pushed the false notion that every social program could be extravagantly funded if only the rich paid their fair share. Newsflash, as Thatcher famously said, the problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other people's money. The reality is that the left in the U.S. does not want to be candid about the level of middle class taxes that are necessary to support its program because it would be political suicide.

Moreover, there is a direct decline in innovation as government takes over sectors of the economy or implements confiscatory taxation. There is a reason that the United States accounts for a lions share of world's patents in the medical field. It is also not a shock that the COVID vaccines were primarily developed by United States companies.

Isnt the current (and first) vaccine developed as a collaboration between Bion Tech (a german company) and Pfizer? Btw, Germany was also the first Country to develop a Corona test. It was the same guy who also developed the first test for the 2003 Sars-Virus.

2 minutes ago, ExplosiveTooka said:

The problem with Margaret Thatcher's grave is that you eventually run out of ****

When you're quoting a woman who funded deathsquads in northern Ireland, you need to stop a moment and think for a second, "Hanz, are we the baddies?"

Even ignoring the deathsquads, Thatcher's legacy speaks for itself.

There is no evidence that Thatcher funded death squads in Northern Ireland. There is some evidence that the British Army paid informants who were involved in Loyalist paramilitary groups, but no evidence that Thatcher "funded death squads." There is overwhelming evidence that Soviets and its socialist allies funneled arms and explosives to Irish nationalist death squads that resulted in hundreds dead.

As far as the rest of Thatcher's legacy, she rescued Great Britain from the near economic collapse caused by the Labor Party and played a critical role in winning the Cold War, which is probably the reason for your personal animus against her.

I note you did not touch the facts that make the basis for my post. Typical of the ad hominem attacks that substitute for reason on the left.

28 minutes ago, postje said:

The German system is not socialized.

What do you mean with this? Of course Germanys Healthcare system is socialized. I'm German. Unless you are a freelancer, you pay a certain percentage of your loan as tax for the General Healthcare Insurance. You pay 50 % of it, your employer pays the other 50 %. That's how it works. You pay a flat percentage rate and get covered all serious health issues, no matter how much it costs. (You also have the option not to pay that tax and insure youself privately, but that will for sure be more expensive. Regarding Freelancers, they are excluded from the General Healthcare Insurance since they dont have an employer, but they have the option to be included in the General Healthcare Insurance if they were in it before, meaning they were employed)

If thats not "socialized" then i dont even know what the word is supposed to mean in this context. Our General Healthcare Insurance is literally classified as a "Solidarity Community". In case you dont know what solidarity means, it means you help others regardless of whether you are getting more out of it then them or not.

And yes, we do have private insurances, too. You can always switch to one of those, if you like. They are more expensive, but cover more stuff. The General Healthcare Insurance has to cover all serious health-related issues though. 87 % of german citizens are insured through the General Healthcare Insurance and not privately. And no, there are not extremely long waiting times or any of that BS a lot of the american right likes to make up about our system. Also, if you live in Germany, you are required by law to have an healthcare insurance. Doesnt matter if its the general one or a private one of your choosing.

19 minutes ago, postje said:

...[Thatcher] played a critical role in winning the Cold War, which is probably the reason for your personal animus against her.

Is that really what you’re getting from this? That the left wish Russia had won the Cold War? Really?

Why is it so hard to accept that people can simultaneously love Democracy and progressive social policies, and despise authoritarian oligarchies (like the USSR was, and like the US is rapidly approaching)?

Something about the right’s view of these two vastly disparate ideals sees them as causal and inextricably linked. They are not. They aren’t even sympathetic to each other.

Progressivism despises autocratic authoritarianism.

2 minutes ago, postje said:

There is no evidence that Thatcher funded death squads in Northern Ireland. There is some evidence that the British Army paid informants who were involved in Loyalist paramilitary groups, but no evidence that Thatcher "funded death squads." There is overwhelming evidence that Soviets and its socialist allies funneled arms and explosives to Irish nationalist death squads that resulted in hundreds dead.

As far as the rest of Thatcher's legacy, she rescued Great Britain from the near economic collapse caused by the Labor Party and played a critical role in winning the Cold War, which is probably the reason for your personal animus against her.

I note you did not touch the facts that make the basis for my post. Typical of the ad hominem attacks that substitute for reason on the left.

You know there is publicly available evidence that Thatcher was involved right? This is the information age. Do Brian Nelson's journals mean anything to you?

I'm not aware of the Soviet Union funding death squads. If you want to talk about providing weapons to the IRA, sure. While you're at it, Cuba sent troops to help defeat the apartheid government in South Africa.

The post-thatcher consensus on austerity has driven Britain into the ground. Her legacy is of ruin.

Also 1)The Soviet Union was bound to collapse since way before Margaret Thatcher assumed power, and giving her or Reagan any responsibility for it is downright silly 2) The vast majority of socialists don't idolize the USSR. The general consensus was that the experiment was a failure or had mixed results, and that it primarily serves as a set of lessons.

As for your cries of "Ad Hominem" this isn't a formal debate you're having in secondary school. A politician's record is important. If your quoting Hitler to defend your point, it would be an ad hominem attack for me to point out that Hitler was terrible. But my point would still be valid.

Let's not even get into income tax brackets. I'm not an advocate for social democracy, except as an accelerationist tactic. ******* Cuba, a country almost completely cut off from trade since the collapse of the soviet union, has better health outcomes than the richest country in the world. You know how they do that? Socialized medicine.