None of you are rich. Why are you defending billionaires?

[xcelerate]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can consider using tax payer money for something the tax payers don't want stealing from the people. Also spreading the wealth I.E. taking money from a rich person and giving it strait to a poor person is basically stealing.

It's not the best term to use though, I'll stick to communism.

 

[Article 15]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

To the rightwing nuts taxes equals robbery and raising taxes equal socialism.

These people are retards.

 

[BDBoop]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

/flips rapidly through "RWNJ to English" dictionary

........... if I'm reading this right, apparently it's 'robbery' if the corporations, aka 'human beings', believe they are paying too much in taxes, regardless of the rate.

Hope that helps.

 

[xcelerate]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

/flips rapidly through "RWNJ to English" dictionary

........... if I'm reading this right, apparently it's 'robbery' if the corporations, aka 'human beings', believe they are paying too much in taxes, regardless of the rate.

Hope that helps.

First of all corporations are not human beings, they are a legal entity.
Second I think we already covered this topic enough, you guys just look like idiots at this point.

 

[Bfgrn]

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

The Difference Between Socialism and Communism

To put it simply: Liberals want the decision to be spread out among more people, preferably everyone; conservatives want the decision to be made by as few people as possible, preferably just one.

Socialism, as envisioned by Marx and Engels was, ideally, a where everyone would share the benefits of industrialization. Workers would do better than in the English system at the time (The Communist Manifesto was published in 1848) because there were more workers than bosses and the majority would rule. As a purely economic system, socialism is a lousy way to run a large scale economy. Socialism is not a political system, it's a way of distributing goods and services. At their ideal implementation, socialism and laissez faire capitalism will be identical as everyone will produce exactly what's needed for exactly who needs it. In practice, both work sometimes in microeconomic conditions but fail miserably when applied to national and international economies. And they fail for the same reason: Human pervserity. Too many people don't like to play fair, and both systems only work when everyone follow the same rules.

Socialism is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the economy works. Democracy is liberal. More people (preferably everyone) have some say in how the government works. "Democracy," said Marx, "is the road to socialism." He was wrong about how economics and politics interact, but he did see their similar underpinnings.

Communism is conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just the Party Secretary) have any say in how the economy works. Republicans are conservative. Fewer and fewer people (preferably just people controlling the Party figurehead) have any say in how the government works. The conservatives in the US are in the same position as the communists in the 30s, and for the same reason: Their revolutions failed spectacularly but they refuse to admit what went wrong.

A common mistake is to confuse Socialism, the economic system, with Communism, the political system. Communists are "socialist" in the same way that Republicans are "compassionate conservatives". That is, they give lip service to ideals they have no intention of practicing.

Communism, or "scientific socialism", has very little to do with Marx. Communism was originally envisioned by Marx and Engels as the last stages of their socialist revolution. "The meaning of the word communism shifted after 1917, when Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party seized power in Russia. The Bolsheviks changed their name to the Communist Party and installed a repressive, single-party regime devoted to the implementation of socialist policies." (quote from Encarta.). Those socialist policies were never implemented.

Whereas Marx saw industrialized workers rising up to take over control of their means of production, the exact opposite happened. Most countries that have gone Communist have been agrarian underdeveloped nations. The prime example is the Soviet Union. The best thing to be said about the October Revolution in 1917 is that the new government was better than the Tsars. The worst thing is that they trusted the wrong people, notably Lenin, to lead this upheaval. The Soviet Union officially abandoned socialism in 1921 when Lenin instituted the New Economic Policy allowing for taxation, local trade, some state capitalism... and extreme profiteering. Later that year, he purged 259,000 from the party membership and therefore purged them from voting (shades of the US election of 2000!) and fewer and fewer people were involved in making decisions.

Marxism became Marxist-Leninism which became Stalinism. The Wikipedia entry for Stalinism: "The term Stalinism was used by anti-Soviet Marxists, particularly Trotskyists, to distinguish the policies of the Soviet Union from those they regard as more true to Marxism. Trotskyists argue that the Stalinist USSR was not socialist, but a bureaucratized degenerated workers state that is, a state in which exploitation is controlled by a ruling caste which, while it did not own the means of production and was not a social class in its own right, accrued benefits and privileges at the expense of the working class."

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can consider using tax payer money for something the tax payers don't want stealing from the people. Also spreading the wealth I.E. taking money from a rich person and giving it strait to a poor person is basically stealing.

It's not the best term to use though, I'll stick to communism.

So the overspending on the military is stealing? Cool....

Again, if you're going to use the term communism incorrectly, there is somebody looking like an idiot around here......

 

[xcelerate]

com·mu·nism

noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ 

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

I LOOSELY use the term communism where the public(government) wants to take private(individual's) assets and distribute them throughout the populace, it isn't the precise definition of communism, but it's far to close for comfort. When Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around" I immediately thought communism. He just hasn't gone as far as to say he wants the government to be in control of peoples wages which is the second important half of communist. So tell me how am I using the term communism incorrectly here?

 

[Chris]

com·mu·nism

noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ 

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

I LOOSELY use the term communism where the public(government) wants to take private(individual's) assets and distribute them throughout the populace, it isn't the precise definition of communism, but it's far to close for comfort. When Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around" I immediately thought communism. He just hasn't gone as far as to say he wants the government to be in control of peoples wages which is the second important half of communist. So tell me how am I using the term communism incorrectly here?

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

 

[bripat9643]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

Apparently you can't read. "Taking money from people to give to others is robbery."

 

[bripat9643]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can consider using tax payer money for something the tax payers don't want stealing from the people. Also spreading the wealth I.E. taking money from a rich person and giving it strait to a poor person is basically stealing.

It's not the best term to use though, I'll stick to communism.

All taxation is theft.

 

[bripat9643]

To the rightwing nuts taxes equals robbery and raising taxes equal socialism.

These people are retards.

Where did you prove them wrong?

 

[xcelerate]

com·mu·nism

noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ 

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

I LOOSELY use the term communism where the public(government) wants to take private(individual's) assets and distribute them throughout the populace, it isn't the precise definition of communism, but it's far to close for comfort. When Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around" I immediately thought communism. He just hasn't gone as far as to say he wants the government to be in control of peoples wages which is the second important half of communist. So tell me how am I using the term communism incorrectly here?

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

You can't read I never mentioned increasing taxes to be communism, am I for it? Not really i don't think it will help. Besides all the rich people paying no taxes you libs bitch about pay taxes on capital gains tax which just seems to blow your mind. Btw thats never gonna get raised not even obama has the balls to try that.

 

[Chris]

I'm still failing to see the "robbery". Can someone explain that part?

You can consider using tax payer money for something the tax payers don't want stealing from the people. Also spreading the wealth I.E. taking money from a rich person and giving it strait to a poor person is basically stealing.

It's not the best term to use though, I'll stick to communism.

All taxation is theft.

Horseshit.

What you are saying is treason.

 

[bripat9643]

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

Nothing you have ever posted qualifies as "good sense."

 

[Chris]

com·mu·nism

noun /ˈkämyəˌnizəm/ 

A political theory derived from Karl Marx, advocating class war and leading to a society in which all property is publicly owned and each person works and is paid according to their abilities and needs

I LOOSELY use the term communism where the public(government) wants to take private(individual's) assets and distribute them throughout the populace, it isn't the precise definition of communism, but it's far to close for comfort. When Obama said he wants to "spread the wealth around" I immediately thought communism. He just hasn't gone as far as to say he wants the government to be in control of peoples wages which is the second important half of communist. So tell me how am I using the term communism incorrectly here?

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

You can't read I never mentioned increasing taxes to be communism, am I for it? Not really i don't think it will help. Besides all the rich people paying no taxes you libs bitch about pay taxes on capital gains tax which just seems to blow your mind. Btw thats never gonna get raised not even obama has the balls to try that.

All we have to do is repeal the Bush tax cuts and get out of Iraq and Afghanistan.

Pretty simple really.

 

[Chris]

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

Nothing you have ever posted qualifies as "good sense."

All your posts are just silly insults.

And your avatar is borderline child abuse.

 

[taichiliberal]

Once more for the cheapseats and mentally impaired: A tax is something YOU pay...and if a system is creating based on taxes diverted from your paycheck, YOU PAY INTO IT. Then when you reach retirement age, you collect your social security check.

So if a mugger holds you up at gunpoint and takes all your cash, you've "PAID INTO" your mugger account and expect to get something back?

Liberals are a hoot!

Earth to Bripat, the whole point of a thief is NOT to give back ANY of the money they steel from you. They also don't give you a note telling you exactly what percentage they're taking out of your wallet.

I mean really, Bripat....your "analogies" are becoming more irrational and absurd in a desperate attempt to defend the latest lame ass neocon/teabagger mantra....pathetic, not funny at all.

A matter of fact, a matter of history ... unless our resident neocon/teabagger imbeciles can show how the Soc. Sec. fund magically has money alloted to it outside the taxing of American citizens.

There's no money in it, nitwit. What do you think we've been trying to pound into your skull for weeks and weeks?

We?!?? What other people are so fucking stupid as to make this assinine claim as you, Bripat? Well, here's a little something for your education....unless you like to remain a willfully ignorant neocon/teabagger parrot:


The Social Security Act

The Social Security Act

Now will somebody please explain it to Bripat again, as I'm tired of dealing with insipidly stubborn neocon/teabagger's willful ignorance and lame ass Limbaugh mantras.

Explain what, how you have some kind of "account" with Social Security that has actual spendable money in it?

After that can you explain how the tooth fairy gets the money under my pillow?

My God, this Bripat is either seriously stupid or has taken neocon/teabagger insipid stubborness to the point of psychosis. But hope springs eternal:
MYTHS AND MISINFORMATION ABOUT SOCIAL SECURITY


Social Security History FAQs Internet Myths

 

[Oldstyle]

Raising the top tax rate by 3% is not communism.

It's just good sense.

Are you really this dumb?

Nothing you have ever posted qualifies as "good sense."

All your posts are just silly insults.

And your avatar is borderline child abuse.

Humor me, Chris..."why" is raising the top tax rate by 3% "good sense"? You do realize that even Obama's old Chief Economic Adviser, Christina Romer has come out and stated that raising taxes on ANYONE in an economy this weak would be a terrible idea. She's saying that for the same reason that Barack Obama said it in 2009. So explain to me why it WAS true back then but ISN'T true now? Could it be that a tax raise on the rich is nothing more than a political "ploy" by the Obama Administration? I mean they know only too well that they'll NEVER get that tax increase through the House. It's quite obvious that if the Democrats didn't pass a tax increase when they controlled the House, the Senate and the Oval Office for all those months that they didn't do so for good reason. That good reason was that it would have been devastating to the economy and they would have been blamed for the results. So all this bluster about raising taxes on the wealthy? It's all political theater...designed to get progressives like you all excited while doing absolutely NOTHING.

 

[taichiliberal]

Yet again, you demonstrate that your party is full of morons - you being one of them. You state the obvious assuming I have no idea what the limits are.

Moron.

A household income of $250K does not make me rich.

Idiot.

it sure as hell does not make you the working poor either.

You got problems if you cannot live well on 1/4 mill per year.

The national average wage index for 2009 is 40,711.61

250k is over 6 times the average national wage.

So what? I make more than that, BUT I spent a lifetime earning it; honestly, I might add; I didn't somehow "steal it from the workers." Now, according to you, I owe it to you and anyone else who was less successful? I don't think so. You want what I've got, you have two options: earn it, or come and try to take it. Of course, you and your party of choice advocate another option: have government steal for you, what you are either too lazy, too incompetent, or too gutless to earn or even steal for yourselves! If that doesn't prove the democrat party is nothing, absolutely NOTHING, but the party of thieves, malcontents and assorted losers and parasites, I cannot imagine what would!! I don't know what else to call it, except what it is. I not only despise your party, I HATE it, I would love to see it destroyed. You wanted to create class enemies, out of your damn spite and envy, so be it! You have made yourselves the enemies of every successful person in the country. I do not, and I never will, support ANY compromise with you people on ANYTHING! I prefer absolutely ANYTHING, even war, if it comes to it, over democrat rule! So I tell you what; I can be as nasty as you, so I will oppose ANYTHING, that benefits your party, or any of its constituencies, out of the same spite you have continually demonstrated; our side can play that game too! That is just as "reasonable" as you people are!

WTF are you babbling about? First off, no one in their right mine would believe that someone posting this dreck would have the brains to obtain a personal worth of over $250,000 a year.....mainly because the tax increase that Obama proposes would NOT bankrupt you or destroy your business....period. If it does, then brother you are a piss poor excuse for a businessman. Read the link I posted, genius, and stop regurgitating Limbaughs flatulence.

 

[bripat9643]

You can consider using tax payer money for something the tax payers don't want stealing from the people. Also spreading the wealth I.E. taking money from a rich person and giving it strait to a poor person is basically stealing.

It's not the best term to use though, I'll stick to communism.

All taxation is theft.

Horseshit.

What you are saying is treason.

Aside from surpassing your usual idiocies, you obviously have never read the Constitution.