Graphs for you to ignore

[saveliberty]

You have to remember though, that conservatism, philosophically, does not object to poverty, squalor, deprivation, etc., in a society;

in fact, the existence of such conditions, from the conservative perspective, is a sign that 'free markets' are working.

Name one society that has ever been without the conditions described. Most are far worse than ours in fact.

 

[Truthmatters]

Stalin is not an example of unfedttered markets.

Where is the example in history where unfettered markets produce the freedom you claim it will?

 

[tinydancer]

Any one else want to chat about bread lines?

I remember.

 

[NYcarbineer]

when has unfettered markets ever produced what you claim?

Never.

You have to remember though, that conservatism, philosophically, does not object to poverty, squalor, deprivation, etc., in a society;

in fact, the existence of such conditions, from the conservative perspective, is a sign that 'free markets' are working.

Stalin managed to starve over 8 million of my people in the bread basket of Europe.

Was he a conservative?

That one is not the only perpetrator of an injustice does not exonerate one from one's own guilt.

 

[bripat9643]

Here is one for you. Your MessiahRushie's opinion of his following words is they are BRILLIANT.
C'mon...don't be afraid of disagreeing with your MessiahRushie!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

Rush simply misspoke and later corrected himself. What he meant to say is that water vapor comprises the largest percentage, by far, of greenhouse gases. if so, then according to you libturds, H20 is a pollutant.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Before people question the validity of these, note that this statistic came from Forbes--the worst of all the bootlicking defenders of the rich.

Trickle down economics is the biggest trick on the American people ever. And you boneheads out there still believe it works. There is no excuse for that level of ignorance.

But the real democrat position is such.................................

Good point...

since accrued wealth is not subject to federal taxes, and earned income is, it serves as the greatest bar to becoming wealthy!!


That's right, federal taxes represent one of the greatest hurdles to becoming wealthy.

And since said taxes are a function of the size of government, ...

put two and two together, and one sees that liberalism is exactly the opposite of what it claims to be!

 

[Truthmatters]

Where is your example in history of what you claim will come to pass under unfettered markets?

 

[saveliberty]

That one is not the only perpetrator of an injustice does not exonerate one from one's own guilt.

What faux guilt you selling this week? Is it fresh? Steaming?

 

[NYcarbineer]

You have to remember though, that conservatism, philosophically, does not object to poverty, squalor, deprivation, etc., in a society;

in fact, the existence of such conditions, from the conservative perspective, is a sign that 'free markets' are working.

Name one society that has ever been without the conditions described. Most are far worse than ours in fact.

The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.

They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.

That was my point.

 

[edthecynic]

It's known as the free market!

Glad you've come to your senses.

Better late than never.

when has unfettered markets ever produced what you claim?

I'm going to ignore the word "unfettered" in this context, unless you would care to define same, but will repeat the obvious about capitalism:

" Marxism rested on the assumption that the condition of the working classes would grow ever worse under capitalism, that there would be but two classes: one small and rich, the other vast and increasingly impoverished, and revolution would be the anodyne that would result in the “common good.” But by the early 20th century, it was clear that this assumption was completely wrong! Under capitalism, the standard of living of all was improving: prices falling, incomes rising, health and sanitation improving, lengthening of life spans, diets becoming more varied, the new jobs created in industry paid more than most could make in agriculture, housing improved, and middle class industrialists and business owners displaced nobility and gentry as heroes."
From a speech by Rev. Robert A. Sirico, President, Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty.
Delivered at Hillsdale College, October 27, 2006
https://www.hillsdale.edu/news/imprimis/archive/issue.asp?year=2007&month=05

Another pointy-headed elitist academic with no practical experience preaching from the ivy covered towers of a CON$ervative university.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

 

[bripat9643]

The point being every government has taxed trade, so where do the free markets come in?

The closer an economy is to a free market, the faster it grows. Liberalism impoverishes nations that practice it.

End of story.

 

[bripat9643]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

It has worked every time it has been tried, dipstick.

 

[NYcarbineer]

When have we had a free market in history? Reviewing Hamilton's call for the constitution, he discussed in depth how taxes were collected from trade in a variety of republics. Dating back through history. So when have we had a truly free market?

Slavery was about as close to a 'free market' in labor as you could get. Remember, 'free market' means that government does not interfere with 'market forces'. In a free market the economy is allowed to do whatever the markets allow it to do. If buying, selling, owning, working human beings is profitable, and thus in line with 'market forces',

then in a 'free market' it is allowable. Government intervention to abolish slavery, for reasons in direct conflict with 'market forces', was a direct attack on the 'free market'.

The point being every government has taxed trade, so where do the free markets come in?

You have to tax something, otherwise you have to go without government entirely. I'm not sure what your point is.

 

[bripat9643]

Where in the principles of conservatism do you see a desire to use the government to intervene to 'artificially' alleviate the conditions associated with Poverty?

Where do you not see conservatism trying to get rid of, or at least roll back, the existing government efforts to alleviate the conditions associated with Poverty?

Economic growth is what alleviates poverty, not government transfer programs. They only exacerbate poverty by undermining economic growth.

Liberalism is what creates poverty. Rolling back liberalism is the way you eliminate poverty.

 

[Moonglow]

most politicans are rich, ofcourse the want a tax cut.

 

[Full-Auto]

Slavery was about as close to a 'free market' in labor as you could get. Remember, 'free market' means that government does not interfere with 'market forces'. In a free market the economy is allowed to do whatever the markets allow it to do. If buying, selling, owning, working human beings is profitable, and thus in line with 'market forces',

then in a 'free market' it is allowable. Government intervention to abolish slavery, for reasons in direct conflict with 'market forces', was a direct attack on the 'free market'.

The point being every government has taxed trade, so where do the free markets come in?

You have to tax something, otherwise you have to go without government entirely. I'm not sure what your point is.

The point is whats fair in the tax code. Consumption being the fairest, the same percentage being next in line.

 

[edthecynic]

Here is one for you. Your MessiahRushie's opinion of his following words is they are BRILLIANT.
C'mon...don't be afraid of disagreeing with your MessiahRushie!

April 3, 2007
RUSH: Mark my brilliant words on this. That's how this stuff starts. Now, the question is: is CO2 even a pollutant? Is it an air pollutant? Because if it is, then all the water vapor on this planet is a pollutant. The vast majority of CO2 that's in the atmosphere comes from water vapor.

BTW, not one molecule of CO2 in the entire universe came from H2O!!!

Rush simply misspoke and later corrected himself. What he meant to say is that water vapor comprises the largest percentage, by far, of greenhouse gases. if so, then according to you libturds, H20 is a pollutant.

BULLFUCKINGSHIT!

Please link to this non-existant correction you fabricated.

His whole rant was about CO2 being a pollutant, not H2O being a greenhouse gas. His argument that H2O was a pollutant was because H2O is the source of atmospheric CO2.

 

[Truthmatters]

Do you know why you cant produce a time in history when it worked?

Its because it doesnt

It has worked every time it has been tried, dipstick.

Where is your example?

 

[PoliticalChic]

You have to remember though, that conservatism, philosophically, does not object to poverty, squalor, deprivation, etc., in a society;

in fact, the existence of such conditions, from the conservative perspective, is a sign that 'free markets' are working.

Name one society that has ever been without the conditions described. Most are far worse than ours in fact.

The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor.

They happen to be the policies conservatism most adamantly objects to.

That was my point.

Your point is at the top of your noggin.

"... policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."

Liberal policies are designed to trap the poor and keep them in welfare...

The following may be over your head, so let me know where you need elucidation:

There is no way out of the ‘Poverty Trap’- those who try to work to find their way out of the trap will find that, as income rises, the loss of their welfare benefits is the same as a huge tax on their earnings!

a. Take the example of someone receiving $12,000 in welfare benefits. She takes a new job earning $16,000 a year. But if she loses 50 cents in benefits for every dollar she now earns, that is the equivalent of a 50% tax! Plus, the payroll tax is another 7.65%, and federal tax is another 10% on the margin, plus state tax of 5%.... total: 72.65% tax. Where is the incentive to work? Comes to a salary of $84.15/ week. Now subtract transportation, lunches, etc., etc.

b. “…but the central point is obvious. Marginal tax rates for inner-city inhabitants are prohibitively high. Over the entire wage range from zero to $1,600 per month (equivalent to a gross paycheck of $1,463 per month), the family's monthly spendable income rises by $69. This corresponds to an average tax "wedge" of 95.7 percent. More shocking, between zero and $1,200 per month in gross wages, the family loses $46 in monthly spendable income -- an average tax in excess of 100 percent. This loss in net spendable income is concentrated between gross wages of $700 and $1,200 per month. As monthly wages paid rise by $500 in this span, the family loses its entitlement to $385 in AFDC benefits and $9 in food stamps. In addition the housing subsidy is reduced by $23 and the value of medical benefits declines an estimated $130. At the same time the family's tax liabilities increase by a total of $161 -- $8 in state income and disability insurance taxes, $68 in payroll taxes, and $85 in federal income tax. (Details of these calculations are given in the appendix.)” The Tightening Grip of the Poverty Trap


Now, unless you take the position that welfare is good, and provides a respectable life choice, you must feel really, really dumb for saying:
"...The U.S. has many policies and practices in place, via the government, that alleviate the condition of the poor."


Wise up. Libs want to keep folks poor and reliant on them....so they think and vote the way you do.