I***ts “believe they have a right to be provided other people’s money” irregardless of the situation. They do not have to earn it. They would like to sit in a corner smoking weed, while everyone else works.

They would like to appoint someone like the government collect via taxes all the money, and place it on the “table of plenty” The government would like to collect the money so they can siphon off some of that money for their own self interests.

The government would then have all those freeloaders and working people assemble at the “table of plenty.” They would all sing a couple of verses of Koom By Yah! at the start of the ceremony. Those who sat idly by the whole year would take their unearned share, go down to the corner store, buy some more weed and repeat the sequence once again.

They call it in Bernies words:

“Democratic Socialism!” which is widely supported by the many freeloaders in this country including Bernie who never really had a real job having spending most of his life as a career politician.

If you can get enough elected Democrats in office and those that support Democratic Socialism, this policy could become practice. More and more free stuff could be passed out at the table of plenty.

After a few years, those working would get tired of sharing their hard earned dollars, but the policy would still be in force. Their only choice would be to quit working and join the other freeloaders and smoke weed. Soon the table of plenty would become the table of nothing. Everyone coming to the table would receive their fair share of nothing because nothing multiplied by any number is still nothing. No longer would the song Koom-By-Yah fill the chambers.

Yes, under “Democratic Socialism,” eventually you will run out of other people’s money!

Another failed policy being promoted by the I***tic Democrat Party.

It is always amazing to me to see to see people that are obviously fine, upstanding, Christian men and women involve themselves in the hypocrisy of jobs and money over people's lives. That is the fundamental issue here, people vs. economics. "I've got mine, and you can't jeopardize it." We've reduced it to a dog-eat-dog basis where the morality of the Christian faith is discarded in favor of "keeping what's mine and screw you." Charity and the "good of all" is superseded by raw survival instincts that throws us right back to the morals which existed when we lived in caves. Tolerance and charity are dead. Long live the "king of the mountain."

It is always amazing to me to see to see people that are obviously fine, upstanding, Christian men and women involve themselves in the hypocrisy of jobs and money over people's lives. That is the fundamental issue here, people vs. economics. "I've got mine, and you can't jeopardize it." We've reduced it to a dog-eat-dog basis where the morality of the Christian faith is discarded in favor of "keeping what's mine and screw you." Charity and the "good of all" is superseded by raw survival instincts that throws us right back to the morals which existed when we lived in caves. Tolerance and charity are dead. Long live the "king of the mountain."

It is always amazing to me to see to see people that are obviously fine, upstanding, Christian men and women involve themselves in the hypocrisy of jobs and money over people's lives. That is the fundamental issue here, people vs. economics. "I've got mine, and you can't jeopardize it." We've reduced it to a dog-eat-dog basis where the morality of the Christian faith is discarded in favor of "keeping what's mine and screw you." Charity and the "good of all" is superseded by raw survival instincts that throws us right back to the morals which existed when we lived in caves. Tolerance and charity are dead. Long live the "king of the mountain."

Since some of you have taken my criticism personally, let me say this:
I have no doubt that individual acts of charity are the norm for all of you. And yes, they do make a difference ... but not enough of a difference to alter the trajectory of our anti-immigrant tendencies, and the intolerance for minorities. It looks like we'll have to start rationing life-saving care in many large cities, which means that us older folks are the first to go. That was what I meant about the money vs. lives. We keep saying that you can't put a price on a human life ... we're doing just that when we balk at the cost of more ventilators for these hospitals. We're doing that when we elevate a white Christian life over that of a Guatemalan woman ... both of which are equally in need of life-saving care.
If you say that you agree with elevating that white life over the brown one, and that the brown one doesn't deserve the care ... I truly feel sorry for you.
That is what I meant ... I do hope that you really and truly think about this and choose tolerance and e******y.
If not, there's nothing more for me to say.