How Socialism Ruined My Country

[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.

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 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

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

You completely ignore the economic impact of overregulation, legal liability, unions, and taxes.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

yeah, it's just another form of greed. They don't want to believe that someone actually worked hard for their money.

 

[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 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

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

You completely ignore the economic impact of overregulation, legal liability, unions, and taxes.

Which along with taxes on the rich, the New BS GOP has been cutting for 35 years. You've gotten all you wanted and wrecked the country, dupe, except for the megarich. Thanks for that AND 9/11 thru sheer incompetence, the stupidest wars ever, a corrupt WORLD DEPRESSION, 8 years of mindless obstruction of Dems, and the now the biggest disgrace we've ever had as president. Not to mention the worst bs/hate propaganda machine EVER. I'm guessing this is your high point- it's just too obvious except to the blind and totally brainwashed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Shall we list the countries destroyed by capitalism?

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc?

Vietnam? When it was your Communist paradise, Vietnam had to import rice to keep people from starving. Like China and Russia, Vietnam dumped your beloved Communism in favor of free markets and is now the world's second largest exporter of rice.

 

[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?

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.

yeah, it's just another form of greed. They don't want to believe that someone actually worked hard for their money.

What tripe, superdupe- Count all taxes, and the richest pay less %wise than the middle class.. Here's what not taxing the rich enough, and killing the rest has done:
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

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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.

Bush created Obamas 10 trillion debt? what???

 

[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.

Bush created Obamas 10 trillion debt? what???

Obama's debt was bailouts to avert a full blown depression, and UE and welfare (already on the books) to assist victims, almost a trillion a year to begin, STILL 2-300 billion a year. You dupes think it was just a small recession and the Dems' fault LOL...

 

[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.

yeah, it's just another form of greed. They don't want to believe that someone actually worked hard for their money.

What tripe, superdupe- Count all taxes, and the richest pay less %wise than the middle class.. Here's what not taxing the rich enough, and killing the rest has done:
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:
Sooo Moon Bat how much
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 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

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

Sooo Moon Bat, how much money made by other people do you think you are entitled to simply because you are alive?

You don't give a shit about fairness. It is greed. Fairness is not using the filthy government to steal from other people what you are too sorry to provide for yourself.

By the way Moon Bat, since you are concerned about things like this, didn't you vote for that asshole Obama? He increased poverty, decreased family income and increased income disparity. You were dumb to vote for him, weren't you?

Obama, Crooked Hillary and any of the other Democrats and Libtard socialists don't give a shit about your well being.

 

[Yarddog]

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.

A progressive tax of any sort is wrong headed and foolish... The nanny state is a symptom of spinelessness…
The corrupt fucked IRS have been taking in record revenues the last few year … If they cannot live within their means, they should fucking go without... a bunch of spineless kunts.

Is it fair that the richest get all the new wealth? If it's not progressive, tax is a giveaway to the rich.

Progressive taxation is all about envy... fact

BS. So why do rich Dems want to raise their own taxes (and invest in America)?

They can pay all the taxes they want with their own money, but they should never have a say what other people should be taxed... envy is a spineless emotion...

They've been pandering to the rich and screwing the rest fo 35 years, dupe.

The US has one of the highest Corporate tax rates in the world. A tax is supposed to be just that, a tax. Not a punishment.

 

[francoHFW]

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

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.

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.

yeah, it's just another form of greed. They don't want to believe that someone actually worked hard for their money.

What tripe, superdupe- Count all taxes, and the richest pay less %wise than the middle class.. Here's what not taxing the rich enough, and killing the rest has done:
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:
Sooo Moon Bat how much
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 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

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

Sooo Moon Bat, how much money made by other people do you think you are entitled to simply because you are alive?

You don't give a shit about fairness. It is greed. Fairness is not using the filthy government to steal from other people what you are too sorry to provide for yourself.

By the way Moon Bat, since you are concerned about things like this, didn't you vote for that asshole Obama? He increased poverty, decreased family income and increased income disparity. You were dumb to vote for him, weren't you?

Obama, Crooked Hillary and any of the other Democrats and Libtard socialists don't give a shit about your well being.

Just Reaganism and pander to the rich GOPism continuing to wreck the country duh, and did you hear about the corrupt GOP depression disaster DUHHHHHH. Obama solutions were mindlessly obstructed. You dupes have a whole other planet- amazing....

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Is it fair that the richest get all the new wealth? If it's not progressive, tax is a giveaway to the rich.

Progressive taxation is all about envy... fact

BS. So why do rich Dems want to raise their own taxes (and invest in America)?

They can pay all the taxes they want with their own money, but they should never have a say what other people should be taxed... envy is a spineless emotion...

They've been pandering to the rich and screwing the rest fo 35 years, dupe.

The US has one of the highest Corporate tax rates in the world. A tax is supposed to be just that, a tax. Not a punishment.

With all the GOP loopholes, it has one of the LOWEST effective rates, dupe. Especially some giant corps.

 

[danielpalos]

[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.

Nothing but special pleading. How, special. End the drug war to pay for health care, right wingers.

 

[danielpalos]

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.

The right wing prefers to "blame the poor" for being poor not the Institutions that create poorness.

 

[Crixus]

Shall we list the countries destroyed by capitalism?

Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, Vietnam etc etc?

I take issue with. Ietnam. A guy I work with loves capitalism..Plans on moving back when it becomes
More like America.

 

[danielpalos]

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 = Federated Prudent Bear Fund (A): Overview
4 = The Fed - Financial Accounts of the United States - Z.1 - Current Release
5/6 = 15 Mind-Blowing Facts About Wealth And Inequality In America

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

Sort of makes you wish you had taught at a university and get your research assistants to handle your, "intellectual light work".

 

[Yarddog]

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.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

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.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

As of 2015 I belive Federal regulation sits at over 178,000 pages.

 

[francoHFW]

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.

Capitalism will fail? really? So the revolutionary take off of personal computers and smart phones occurred in which country? The United States a mostly capitalist country? or did it happen in one of those socialist countries where the government is involved in every aspect of their citizens lives?

There is a reason many great technological advances have happened here. It's because people have incentive, and the freedom to act on their incentive and imagination. Socialist countries are much more restrictive.

We dont have pure Capitalism here , and of course we need regulations but those regulations sometimes become duplicitous and often are just ways of collecting revenues off the back of someone trying to start a business. Some people never make it off the ground because the process can take too long depending on the city or state they live in. Yeah, of course any Large society is going to need regulation and most sane conservatives will agree with that, but what they dont want is stupidity and over bearing regulations which is MORE of what you get in socialist systems.

Lets say it does take a little socialism along with a mostly capitalist system to be effective. When you have "government" types running things you will have disconnect and inefficiency ... just take a look at the VA system. It's because you have beurocrats running things who dont have Expertise in the field they are working in.
When the system is run by the free market, so to speak, people will be hired to do the job who know what the hell they are doing. FedX is NEVER going to hire a government beurocrat to run operations at one of their headquarters, but it is possible you could get a guy or gal who started lower down, rose up through the ranks, Knows the way things are supposed to work, and that person will be much better in a leadership position. What you get in more socialist systems are unqualified people put in charge of things. If that happens in a free market system the company will not survive. When the government it self is in charge, all they simply need to do is raise taxes or print more money... Like Zimbabwe.

Another example of what Im talking about is K-Mac Industries Corp. They own hundreds of Taco Bells and KFC across Texas, Ark, and some other states in the south and I believe they are the largest and most successful Taco Bell Franchise in the US. The president of the company Sam Fiori started out as a fry cook in one of the Taco Bells and worked his way up. Thats not going to happen in a socialist country.

Socialism is simply fair , democratic capitalism with a good safety net. NOT communism.

The Uk seems to think they invented the internet...

 

[Flash]

[QU

Just Reaganism and pander to the rich GOPism continuing to wreck the country duh, and did you hear about the corrupt GOP depression disaster DUHHHHHH. Obama solutions were mindlessly obstructed. You dupes have a whole other planet- amazing....

I don't know about you but I got a nice little Reagan income tax cut. Reagan raised taxes in other areas but most income tax paying families benefited from the income tax reduction and that stimulated Reagan's great economic boom. I also paid less income tax with Bush's income tax reduction. If you didn't get one then you weren't doing it right.

If you benefit from the money paid by other people instead of paying your share then that pretty well makes you a welfare queen, doesn't it? Most of you stupid Moon Bats are in the 49% that don't pay into that $trillion a year income tax pool so I don't know why you greedy little shitheads are bitching.

The thing that you stupid Moon bats can't seem to understand is that the money made by Americans is put to much better use in the productive economy than giving it to some stupid corrupt politicians, who was elected by special interest groups.

The reason why this economy isn't doing as well as it should and the reason why under Obama we had increased poverty, decreased family income and increased income disparity is because almost 40% of the GDP is going for the combine cost of government and that is disastrous to our economy. When is enough going to be enough for you greedy little bastards?

What is really dumbass are you stupid Moon Bats that voted for that Crooked Hillary nitwit who ran on a platform to increase taxes. How dumb was that?

 

[bripat9643]

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.

Bush created Obamas 10 trillion debt? what???

The libs have found a way to blame Bush for all of Obama's deficits.