How Socialism Ruined My Country

[Flash]

[

Sorry, man, poor people didn't have enough money to create the Great Recession. The Great recession wasn't caused by poor people buying homes.

It was caused by rich people misrepresenting the value of mortgages and selling them as investments.

You are confused.

The housing collapse was cause by the stupid Democrat plan called the ARA to use government pressure to force lenders to give credit to people that had neither the means nor the inclination to ever pay the money back. You know, for social justice reasons. Also, was the under the table promise that if everything went bad that the government would make good the losses in bailouts, which is exactly what happen.

What could possibly go wrong?

Another dumb Left idea that almost ruined our economy.

 

[Flash]

As we know Brazil is not the only country to be screwed by stupid socialism. Another great example is Argentina.

 

[Flash]

[Q


COMMUNISM is totalitarian where the state owns everything. Socialism is democratic, well regulated fair capitalism with a good safety net. Try getting that thru your thick brainwashed head.

Just because you vote in economic failure doesn't mean that it is any less destructive.

Democracy can be just as oppressive as any other form of government.

When the greedy majority (which is usually only a plurality) finds out it can use the government to steal then that is when you have socialism and the ensuing economic failures that are destined to happen.

Socialism only works until the money that made under capitalism runs out then everybody is screwed.

 

[JoeB131]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

 

[JoeB131]

The housing collapse was cause by the stupid Democrat plan called the ARA to use government pressure to force lenders to give credit to people that had neither the means nor the inclination to ever pay the money back. You know, for social justice reasons. Also, was the under the table promise that if everything went bad that the government would make good the losses in bailouts, which is exactly what happen.

First, it was called the CRA.
Second it was put in place in the 1970's
Third, the banks were obligated to make any loans that weren't supported by collateral or earnings. They were just prohibited from redlining based on geography or race.

Finally, the crash was not caused by CRA loans. Of the 25 top banks that failed only one made CRA loans. The crash was caused because Middle class folks were buying more house than they needed at inflated prices hoping to flip them as investments.

 

[Flash]

The housing collapse was cause by the stupid Democrat plan called the ARA to use government pressure to force lenders to give credit to people that had neither the means nor the inclination to ever pay the money back. You know, for social justice reasons. Also, was the under the table promise that if everything went bad that the government would make good the losses in bailouts, which is exactly what happen.

First, it was called the CRA.
Second it was put in place in the 1970's
Third, the banks were obligated to make any loans that weren't supported by collateral or earnings. They were just prohibited from redlining based on geography or race.

Finally, the crash was not caused by CRA loans. Of the 25 top banks that failed only one made CRA loans. The crash was caused because Middle class folks were buying more house than they needed at inflated prices hoping to flip them as investments.

You are confused Moon Bat.

The stupid Democrats came up with a bill that put pressure on lenders to give credit to people that wouldn't normally qualify. Dumb idea wasn't it?

That dumbass Jimmy Carter thought it would enable the welfare queens and working poor to afford the American dream of owning their own home.

The lenders were not forced to give credit but tremendous pressure was put on them to do so. At a time when most large banks were looking at expansionist in the US they needed to kiss the ass of the filthy government by adhering to the CRA.

That whole dumb idea led to very lax lending requirements that failed and almost collapsed our economy. Everybody and their little brown dog were able to get a mortgage on a house regardless of they were able to pay back the loan or not. Then the stupid government covered the losses with bailouts so in the long run there was no penalty to anybody except the taxpayer for the stupid idea.

This is the kind of failure we see when the filthy government tries to get involved in the free market for social justice reasons. Without government interference and promise of bailouts the banks would have had to be more fiscal responsible like they had been before the CRA. Government fucks up everything.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here is the $20,000 question, that liberals always avoid, because they have their heads up Uranus.
Now focus Joe, this question is always asked but never answered by you libtards.....

What is a FAIR SHARE that the rich should have to pay? Isnt 55% of the taxes taken in by the IRS from the RICH enough? Why should the poor get earned income credits, and not pay? Where is their fair share?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

The housing collapse was cause by the stupid Democrat plan called the ARA to use government pressure to force lenders to give credit to people that had neither the means nor the inclination to ever pay the money back. You know, for social justice reasons. Also, was the under the table promise that if everything went bad that the government would make good the losses in bailouts, which is exactly what happen.

First, it was called the CRA.
Second it was put in place in the 1970's
Third, the banks were obligated to make any loans that weren't supported by collateral or earnings. They were just prohibited from redlining based on geography or race.

Finally, the crash was not caused by CRA loans. Of the 25 top banks that failed only one made CRA loans. The crash was caused because Middle class folks were buying more house than they needed at inflated prices hoping to flip them as investments.

Is the reason why you have 2 houses Joe, that you were buying more house than you needed? Come on Joe, why do you need 2 houses, you fucking hypocrite?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

And Obama taxed the shit out of US and the debt doubled on HIS watch from 9 trillion to 19 trillion. Yeah, raising taxes on the rich really did you well, Joe, did you feel better knowing that those evil rich(Warren Buffet who pays less tax rate than his secretary) were getting screwed? Nope, Joe no matter what is done to the EVIL rich, you still will have wealth envy as liberals can never be happy. Even when everyone is poor and miserable Joe, like in Venezuela, liberals cant be happy, which is why liberalism needs to be eradicated from the Earth. Once it is gone, then the world would be a happier place.

Liberalism and Happiness Don’t Mix

Why so? The reasons are many. For one, liberals, especially white American liberals, are highly critical and dissatisfied with their country, culture, race, and gender. If you don’t like the society, race, culture, and gender that you’re part of, your ability to feel good about yourself becomes much more challenging.

Liberals are humans, but they think humans are destroying the planet. They’re Americans, but they think that America is primarily responsible for most of the problems in the world. White liberals wallow in guilt about “white privilege,” which diminishes any sense of personal accomplishment they might have. Liberals firmly believe in the importance of the “collective,” yet they don’t like the collectives they’re parts of.

 

[peach174]

Why is it that an opposite view in political ideology is always hate speech to the left?
That ideology keeps people from actually looking for an alternative.
Hate speech would be threats ,not a difference in political views.
It's the left who threat and destroy private & public property.

 

[danielpalos]

Shall we list the countries destroyed by capitalism?

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc?

It's so funny how liberals take it so personally when socialism is attacked. They immediately have to spring to its defense by attacking capitalism. Libs hate capitalism just as much as they do Christians and whites.

The right wing does not care about capitalism. It is just propaganda. Our drug war is pure socialism.

 

[Flash]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here is the $20,000 question, that liberals always avoid, because they have their heads up Uranus.
Now focus Joe, this question is always asked but never answered by you libtards.....

What is a FAIR SHARE that the rich should have to pay? Isnt 55% of the taxes taken in by the IRS from the RICH enough? Why should the poor get earned income credits, and not pay? Where is their fair share?

Joe won't answer that question because the root of socialism that the Left loves so much is not fairness. It is greed.

They will tell you that it is unfair that somebody else makes more money than they do and that is the justification for taking the money by increased taxation but in reality that is nothing but greed, plain and simple.

 

[bripat9643]

Shall we list the countries destroyed by capitalism?

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc?

Your talking about the effects of war. The OP shows that Brazil took the same course the Democrats would like to take the US economy on. The Op pretty much lays out the recipe for economic disaster pretty well.

So, am I to understand your position, that when capitalist countries go to war, especially economic wars like Iraq, that this isn't the impact of capitalism on countries?

Ok so heres a problem I see with the socialist model. There is corruption in any system. With people it is always inevetable that some will use favors to get around the rules for themselves and their company. In a capitalist system, things are "run" by the free market. In that case, it works out well that the government sets up regulatory measures to keep things in check. Even then though there can be corruption, but at least there is a division in political parties and branches of government. and we can hope that they also keep each other in check.

But in a Socialist system, say Venezuela for example, The government is the one running things to a much greater extent than the market system is. So then if the government becomes corrupt, who is there left to hold the government accountable? No one. It's like having the fox taking care of the hen house so to speak.

Here's the thing. If you have Capitalism, it will fail. No state has managed to have pure capitalism and survive. Monopolies will be created, corruption will be insane, etc.

So Capitalism needs to have regulation in order to make it function.

Could it not be that Socialism could work that way too? The problem is that most, if not all, Socialist systems have been implemented through force, there's the first problem. Capitalism through force doesn't always work either, ask Zimbabwe.

Utter horseshit.

 

[danielpalos]

Why is it that an opposite view in political ideology is always hate speech to the left?
That ideology keeps people from actually looking for an alternative.
Hate speech would be threats ,not a difference in political views.
It's the left who threat and destroy private & public property.

lol. all political talk and no political action? your side has nothing but repeal.

 

[danielpalos]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here is the $20,000 question, that liberals always avoid, because they have their heads up Uranus.
Now focus Joe, this question is always asked but never answered by you libtards.....

What is a FAIR SHARE that the rich should have to pay? Isnt 55% of the taxes taken in by the IRS from the RICH enough? Why should the poor get earned income credits, and not pay? Where is their fair share?

Joe won't answer that question because the root of socialism that the Left loves so much is not fairness. It is greed.

They will tell you that it is unfair that somebody else makes more money than they do and that is the justification for taking the money by increased taxation but in reality that is nothing but greed, plain and simple.

The political reality is, Your guy wants to lower taxes to benefit the rich, micromanage our tax codes to benefit himself, and cut food stamps for the poor.

any other, right wing fantasy?

 

[Flash]

[Q

The political reality is, Your guy wants to lower taxes to benefit the rich, micromanage our tax codes to benefit himself, and cut food stamps for the poor.

any other, right wing fantasy?

Newsflsh Moon Bat. The "rich" will always benefit from any tax cuts because they are the ones that pays the most taxes. What else is new?

You stupid Moon Bats are deathly afraid of any tax cut because it will greatly stimulate the economy and that will highlight the failure of that incompetent affirmative action asshole Obama who couldn't even achieve a 3% economic growth in any of his eight years of being the President of you stupid Moon Bats.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Capitalism in the US just recently created The Bush Great Recessoin, and 20 trillion dollars of debt. The US has a president that hands out government jobs to his friends and family like candy on Halloween. He colluded with a foreign adversary to fix the US election. And he and his allies in Congress are working on a tax cut that will cut taxes on the poor by $40 but cut taxes on wealthy people by $1,000,000.

Yeah that shit is working like a well oiled machine in America.

All successful governments are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. There aren't any Americans volunteering to pay for and pave their own roads, they expect the Society collectively to pay for that. One example out of thousands. People don't equate roads with 'socialism' because they've always been there. Someone has to pay for them, and 95% of the population could not afford to pay for even a 1/4 mile of a paved road.

Everyone that believes they are pure capitalists you need to pry your lips off the socialist teet first. The video in the OP is simple minded and directed at simple minded people. Corruption leads to debt and disaster? Yeah no shit, just check with Wallstreet in September 2008.

If you pay more in taxes, you get a greater tax cut in raw dollars. Define "poor". Most poor and even lower middle class pay no taxes. If they got a tax cut it means they were paid even though they did not pay taxes. I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with the high income earners netting more dollars in a tax cut vs. what get because they are already paying more dollars than I do in taxes. My problem is the Left simply uses this as a vehicle to stir up class warfare to make US more like the failed socialist economies around the world. We have limited socialism. Let's keep it that way.

I agree on the limited socialism. Nobody in politics is even promoting 'socialism'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't. He's not advocating for the government to control all the means of production. He's talking about social justice and equality in specific areas like healthcare and I agree that it is a right for humans to have access to adequate healthcare. The newer generations believe this as well. I'm not for the nationalization of industry or business. Certainly they need to be regulated because all human systems move towards concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Just as with a nuclear reactor you need control rods or the reaction burns itself up. This is true for all human systems through all of history. Left unchecked they give us The Bush Great Recession of 2008. Greedy people do not police themselves. They in fact look for never ending ways to cheat and manipulate the system in their favor.

Good response. When you site concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, that's what happens in unchecked Socialism. A true, locked in 1percent is created.

 

[francoHFW]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here is the $20,000 question, that liberals always avoid, because they have their heads up Uranus.
Now focus Joe, this question is always asked but never answered by you libtards.....

What is a FAIR SHARE that the rich should have to pay? Isnt 55% of the taxes taken in by the IRS from the RICH enough? Why should the poor get earned income credits, and not pay? Where is their fair share?

Brainwashed by BS^^

The one tax graph you really need to know




By Ezra Klein September 19, 2012

At the heart of the debate over "the 47 percent" is an awful abuse of tax data.

This entire conversation is the result of a (largely successful) effort to redefine the debate over taxes from "how much in taxes do you pay" to "how much in federal income taxes do you pay?" This is good framing if you want to cut taxes on the rich. It's bad framing if you want to have even a basic understanding of who pays how much in taxes.

There's a reason some would prefer that more limited conversation. For most Americans, payroll and state and local taxes make up the majority of their tax bill. The federal income tax, by contrast, is our most progressive tax -- it's the tax we've designed to place the heaviest burden on the rich while bypassing the poor. And we've done that, again, because the working class is already paying a fairly high tax bill through payroll and state and local taxes.

Wonkbook newsletter

Your daily policy cheat sheet from Wonkblog.



But most people don't know very much about the tax code. And the federal income tax is still our most famous tax. So when they hear that half of Americans aren't paying federal income taxes, they're outraged -- even if they're among the folks who have a net negative tax burden! After all, they know they're paying taxes, and there's no reason for normal human beings to assume that the taxes getting taken out of their paycheck every week and some of the taxes they pay at the end of the year aren't classified as "federal income taxes."

Confining the discussion to the federal income tax plays another role, too: It makes the tax code look much more progressive than it actually is.

Take someone who makes $4 million dollars a year and someone who makes $40,000 a year. The person making $4 million dollars, assuming he's not doing some Romney-esque planning, is paying a 35 percent tax on most of that money. The person making $40,000 is probably paying no income tax at all. So that makes the system look really unfair to the rich guy.

That's the basic analysis of the 47 percent line. And it's a basic analysis that serves a purpose: It makes further tax cuts for the rich sound more reasonable.

But what if we did the same thing for the payroll tax? Remember, the payroll tax only applies to first $110,100 or so, our rich friends is only paying payroll taxes on 2.7 percent of his income. The guy making $40,000? He's paying payroll taxes on every dollar of his income. Now who's not getting a fair shake?

Which is why, if you want to understand who's paying what in taxes, you don't want to just look at federal income taxes, or federal payroll taxes, or state sales taxes -- you want to look at total taxes. And, luckily, the tax analysis group Citizens for Tax Justice keeps those numbers. So here is total taxes -- which includes corporate taxes, income taxes, payroll taxes, state sales taxes, and more -- paid by different income groups and broken into federal and state and local burdens:

That's really what the American tax system looks like: Not 47 percent paying nothing, but everybody paying something, and most Americans paying between 25 percent and 30 percent of their income -- which is, by the way, a lot more the 13.9 percent Mitt Romney paid in 2011*.
The one tax graph you really need to know

 

[francoHFW]

Capitalism in the US just recently created The Bush Great Recessoin, and 20 trillion dollars of debt. The US has a president that hands out government jobs to his friends and family like candy on Halloween. He colluded with a foreign adversary to fix the US election. And he and his allies in Congress are working on a tax cut that will cut taxes on the poor by $40 but cut taxes on wealthy people by $1,000,000.

Yeah that shit is working like a well oiled machine in America.

All successful governments are a mix of Capitalism and Socialism. There aren't any Americans volunteering to pay for and pave their own roads, they expect the Society collectively to pay for that. One example out of thousands. People don't equate roads with 'socialism' because they've always been there. Someone has to pay for them, and 95% of the population could not afford to pay for even a 1/4 mile of a paved road.

Everyone that believes they are pure capitalists you need to pry your lips off the socialist teet first. The video in the OP is simple minded and directed at simple minded people. Corruption leads to debt and disaster? Yeah no shit, just check with Wallstreet in September 2008.

If you pay more in taxes, you get a greater tax cut in raw dollars. Define "poor". Most poor and even lower middle class pay no taxes. If they got a tax cut it means they were paid even though they did not pay taxes. I have no problem with that just like I have no problem with the high income earners netting more dollars in a tax cut vs. what get because they are already paying more dollars than I do in taxes. My problem is the Left simply uses this as a vehicle to stir up class warfare to make US more like the failed socialist economies around the world. We have limited socialism. Let's keep it that way.

I agree on the limited socialism. Nobody in politics is even promoting 'socialism'. Bernie Sanders calls himself a socialist but he isn't. He's not advocating for the government to control all the means of production. He's talking about social justice and equality in specific areas like healthcare and I agree that it is a right for humans to have access to adequate healthcare. The newer generations believe this as well. I'm not for the nationalization of industry or business. Certainly they need to be regulated because all human systems move towards concentrating the wealth in the hands of a few at the expense of the many. Just as with a nuclear reactor you need control rods or the reaction burns itself up. This is true for all human systems through all of history. Left unchecked they give us The Bush Great Recession of 2008. Greedy people do not police themselves. They in fact look for never ending ways to cheat and manipulate the system in their favor.

Good response. When you site concentration of wealth in the hands of the few, that's what happens in unchecked Socialism. A true, locked in 1percent is created.

BS. Reaganist tax rates and policies have done this DUHHHHHHH.....RWers know NOTHING, it appears...

The Demise of the American Middle Class In Numbers.

Over the past 35 years the American dream has gradually disappeared. The process was slow, so most people didn’t notice. They just worked a few more hours, borrowed a little more and cut back on non-essentials. But looking at the numbers and comparing them over long time periods, it is obvious that things have changed drastically. Here are the details:

1. WORKERS PRODUCE MORE BUT THE GAINS GO TO BUSINESS.

Over the past 63 years worker productivity has grown by 2.0% per year.

But after 1980, workers received a smaller share every year. Labor’s share of income (1992 = 100%):

1950 = 101%
1960 = 105%
1970 = 105%
1980 = 105% – Reagan
1990 = 100%
2000 = 96%
2007 = 92%

A 13% drop since 1980

2. THE TOP 10% GET A LARGER SHARE.

Share of National Income going to Top 10%:

1950 = 35%
1960 = 34%
1970 = 34%
1980 = 34% – Reagan
1990 = 40%
2000 = 47%
2007 = 50%

An increase of 16% since Reagan.

3. WORKERS COMPENSATED FOR THE LOSS OF INCOME BY SPENDING THEIR SAVINGS.

The savings Rose up to Reagan and fell during and after.

1950 = 6.0%
1960 = 7.0%
1970 = 8.5%
1980 = 10.0% – Reagan
1982 = 11.2% – Peak
1990 = 7.0%
2000 = 2.0%
2006 = -1.1% (Negative = withdrawing from savings)

A 12.3% drop after Reagan.

4. WORKERS ALSO BORROWED TO MAKE UP FOR THE LOSS.

Household Debt as percentage of GDP:

1965 = 46%
1970 = 45%
1980 = 50% – Reagan
1990 = 61%
2000 = 69%
2007 = 95%

A 45% increase after 1980.

5. SO THE GAP BETWEEN THE RICHEST AND THE POOREST HAS GROWN.

Gap Between the Share of Capital Income earned by the top 1%
and the bottom 80%:

1980 = 10%
2003 = 56%

A 5.6 times increase.

6. AND THE AMERICAN DREAM IS GONE.

The Probably of Moving Up from the Bottom 40% to the Top 40%:

1945 = 12%
1958 = 6%
1990 = 3%
2000 = 2%

A 10% Decrease.

Links:

1 = ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/pf/totalf1.txt
1 = https://www.clevelandfed.org/Research/PolicyDis/No7Nov04.pdf
1 = Clipboard01.jpg (image)
2 – http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/blog/09/04/27/CongratulationstoEmmanuelSaez/
3 = http://www.demos.org/inequality/images/charts/uspersonalsaving_thumb.gif
3 = U.S. Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA)
4 = http://www.prudentbear.com/index.php/household-sector-debt-of-gdp
4 = http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/z1/current/
5/6 = http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...lity-in-america-2010-4?slop=1#slideshow-start

Overview = http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2010062415/reagan-revolution-home-roost-charts

 

[francoHFW]

Are you a student of Common Core? I never graduated from college, yet my PHD in the school of life, has enabled me to figure out who is fucking you and who isn't.

Nw, man, listening to hate radio every day doesn't make you smarter.

And that was why Nancy Pelosi assumed the gavel, because Conservatives saw how the establishment Repubs were against the people.

Nancy got the gavel because Bush lied us into a war in Iraq, and thousands of Americans came home in boxes or wheelchairs. that's why Nancy got the gavel. Of course, by then it was too late, the Wall Street Foxes had taken all the chickens.

Liberals don't want a consumption tax, for then everyone must pay a fair tax.

No, a consumption tax is a terrible idea for a totally different reason. People would actually consume less. They'll put off purchases and not make some purchases at all.

That means less money for people who make things and people who sell things, and then they have to start firing people.

Here's the thing, when you make the rich pay their fair share, you have the economic growth to keep the national debt down as a percentage of GDP.

Here's a graph to help you out. We had a big spike in the Debt with World War II when we were saving the world. But we kept making the rich pay their fair share, and the debt went down as the economy continued to grow and we invested in important infrastructure like schools and roads and stuff.

Then along came your boy Ronnie Raygun, who cut the taxes on the rich and busted the middle class,and guess what, the National debt tripled. Went from 30% of GDP to 70% of GDP by the time Bush-41 was thrown out of office.

Clinton made the rich pay their fair share again, and it started to do down, but then Bush cut their taxes and it ballooned up to where it is today.

And Obama taxed the shit out of US and the debt doubled on HIS watch from 9 trillion to 19 trillion. Yeah, raising taxes on the rich really did you well, Joe, did you feel better knowing that those evil rich(Warren Buffet who pays less tax rate than his secretary) were getting screwed? Nope, Joe no matter what is done to the EVIL rich, you still will have wealth envy as liberals can never be happy. Even when everyone is poor and miserable Joe, like in Venezuela, liberals cant be happy, which is why liberalism needs to be eradicated from the Earth. Once it is gone, then the world would be a happier place.

Liberalism and Happiness Don’t Mix

Why so? The reasons are many. For one, liberals, especially white American liberals, are highly critical and dissatisfied with their country, culture, race, and gender. If you don’t like the society, race, culture, and gender that you’re part of, your ability to feel good about yourself becomes much more challenging.

Liberals are humans, but they think humans are destroying the planet. They’re Americans, but they think that America is primarily responsible for most of the problems in the world. White liberals wallow in guilt about “white privilege,” which diminishes any sense of personal accomplishment they might have. Liberals firmly believe in the importance of the “collective,” yet they don’t like the collectives they’re parts of.

BS, superdupe. Most of his debt were to avert ANOTHER corrupt GOP depression and to assist victims in already existing UE and welfare programs.