Your view on Socialism/Communism/Liberalism

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not sure you quite understand the situation as it was in Venezuela. Chavez wasn't just giving out free money, he was EDUCATING PEOPLE, giving them healthcare, instead of allowing oil money to go into rich people's pockets.

I'm not defending Chavez, he messed up big time, I'm not a socialist or a communist at all, however if a country has natural resources in the amounts Venezuela has, why should this money go to a small elite of usually foreign people? Chavez took that money and used it for the benefit of the people, rather than the benefit of a few.

Corruption is a problem, with government, or with private companies the rich etc. Some things don't change. Venezuela was corrupt before Chavez and corrupt after him too.

Why is it we keep hearing the liberals talk about FREE public education, yet the teachers WONT teach for FREE? Why is it that the liberals want US Citizens to pay more in taxes then avoid paying taxes that they champion? At one time, doctors would give pro bono medical to those in need, because those who could pay were happy enough to cover the costs to keep the doctor around. Healthcare was never a right, but a privilege, that people who worked were given healthcare benefits to attract better employees. Now that Obama has taken over the healthcare system everyone is suffering (expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who wrote themselves out of the system) by having to pay more. Now let me show you some examples of what liberalism does.

Charlie Rangel Caught in Tax Fraud Scandal

Charlie Rangel Caught in Tax Fraud Scandal

Are you getting pissy about free education now?

Look, if your views are that people shouldn't be educated if they were unlucky enough to be born into poor families, and you're so unwilling to see the benefits of compulsory education for all, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you. You'll just have to accept that it exists in most countries in the world, and that it's a very good thing.

Why kids shouldn't be born into this world with equal opportunities to make it in this world, I don't know. The right go on about how kids are so innocent, can't have abortions because the fetus is so innocent. But the moment they're born they're judged on how much money their parents have and their life opportunities are defined by how much money their parents have.... seems a little contradictory to me.

Whoa, hold on tex. I just asked you a question that you conveniently avoided, let me ask it again, before you go on a liberal rant. Now focus on this question and please answer honestly, I know it will be hard but still try.

you said " Chavez took that money and used it for the benefit of the people, rather than the benefit of a few..."

I asked "Can you show me how that money is being used to benefit the people?"

So as long as everyone suffers equally, then no one should have more money than the others?

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

 

[bripat9643]

Why is it we keep hearing the liberals talk about FREE public education, yet the teachers WONT teach for FREE? Why is it that the liberals want US Citizens to pay more in taxes then avoid paying taxes that they champion? At one time, doctors would give pro bono medical to those in need, because those who could pay were happy enough to cover the costs to keep the doctor around. Healthcare was never a right, but a privilege, that people who worked were given healthcare benefits to attract better employees. Now that Obama has taken over the healthcare system everyone is suffering (expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who wrote themselves out of the system) by having to pay more. Now let me show you some examples of what liberalism does.

Charlie Rangel Caught in Tax Fraud Scandal

Are you getting pissy about free education now?

Look, if your views are that people shouldn't be educated if they were unlucky enough to be born into poor families, and you're so unwilling to see the benefits of compulsory education for all, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you. You'll just have to accept that it exists in most countries in the world, and that it's a very good thing.

Why kids shouldn't be born into this world with equal opportunities to make it in this world, I don't know. The right go on about how kids are so innocent, can't have abortions because the fetus is so innocent. But the moment they're born they're judged on how much money their parents have and their life opportunities are defined by how much money their parents have.... seems a little contradictory to me.

Whoa, hold on tex. I just asked you a question that you conveniently avoided, let me ask it again, before you go on a liberal rant. Now focus on this question and please answer honestly, I know it will be hard but still try.

you said " Chavez took that money and used it for the benefit of the people, rather than the benefit of a few..."

I asked "Can you show me how that money is being used to benefit the people?"

So as long as everyone suffers equally, then no one should have more money than the others?

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

Yeah, Chavez and Maduro fucked things up: The adopted socialism. End of story. There is no scenario where socialism has a positive outcome.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

When Herman Cain pointed that out, he was attacked by the liberals through a White Democrat Female hack who "accused" him of sexual improprieties but never was charge for the "supposed" crime.

Actually, Uncle Tom Cain was accused by NUMEROUS women of these kinds of improprieties. And the only reason why anyone paid any attention to them is because for a week and a half, he became the "not Romney" you knuckled draggers clung to.

Yes, every election cycle, you guys find some Uncle Tom to validate your racism.

Alan Keyes, Herman Cain, Ben Carson. "Shooore enough boss, them other negroes shooore be shiftless...."

And you never nominated one of these clowns, because they are clowns. But you can claim to be totally not racist because you considered it for a minute and a half.

Actually, Uncle Tom Cain was accused by

See what I mean, about liberals being the REAL racists. When a person of color leaves the plantation of the left, they are called all derogatory terms. If what you say is correct, why haven't any charges been brought up, like it was will the 2 Bills? Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Why is it we keep hearing the liberals talk about FREE public education, yet the teachers WONT teach for FREE? Why is it that the liberals want US Citizens to pay more in taxes then avoid paying taxes that they champion? At one time, doctors would give pro bono medical to those in need, because those who could pay were happy enough to cover the costs to keep the doctor around. Healthcare was never a right, but a privilege, that people who worked were given healthcare benefits to attract better employees. Now that Obama has taken over the healthcare system everyone is suffering (expect Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi who wrote themselves out of the system) by having to pay more. Now let me show you some examples of what liberalism does.

Charlie Rangel Caught in Tax Fraud Scandal

Are you getting pissy about free education now?

Look, if your views are that people shouldn't be educated if they were unlucky enough to be born into poor families, and you're so unwilling to see the benefits of compulsory education for all, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you. You'll just have to accept that it exists in most countries in the world, and that it's a very good thing.

Why kids shouldn't be born into this world with equal opportunities to make it in this world, I don't know. The right go on about how kids are so innocent, can't have abortions because the fetus is so innocent. But the moment they're born they're judged on how much money their parents have and their life opportunities are defined by how much money their parents have.... seems a little contradictory to me.

Whoa, hold on tex. I just asked you a question that you conveniently avoided, let me ask it again, before you go on a liberal rant. Now focus on this question and please answer honestly, I know it will be hard but still try.

you said " Chavez took that money and used it for the benefit of the people, rather than the benefit of a few..."

I asked "Can you show me how that money is being used to benefit the people?"

So as long as everyone suffers equally, then no one should have more money than the others?

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you getting pissy about free education now?

Look, if your views are that people shouldn't be educated if they were unlucky enough to be born into poor families, and you're so unwilling to see the benefits of compulsory education for all, then I guess there's nothing I can do for you. You'll just have to accept that it exists in most countries in the world, and that it's a very good thing.

Why kids shouldn't be born into this world with equal opportunities to make it in this world, I don't know. The right go on about how kids are so innocent, can't have abortions because the fetus is so innocent. But the moment they're born they're judged on how much money their parents have and their life opportunities are defined by how much money their parents have.... seems a little contradictory to me.

Whoa, hold on tex. I just asked you a question that you conveniently avoided, let me ask it again, before you go on a liberal rant. Now focus on this question and please answer honestly, I know it will be hard but still try.

you said " Chavez took that money and used it for the benefit of the people, rather than the benefit of a few..."

I asked "Can you show me how that money is being used to benefit the people?"

So as long as everyone suffers equally, then no one should have more money than the others?

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Whoa, hold on tex. I just asked you a question that you conveniently avoided, let me ask it again, before you go on a liberal rant. Now focus on this question and please answer honestly, I know it will be hard but still try.
So as long as everyone suffers equally, then no one should have more money than the others?

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[JoeB131]

See what I mean, about liberals being the REAL racists. When a person of color leaves the plantation of the left, they are called all derogatory terms. If what you say is correct, why haven't any charges been brought up, like it was will the 2 Bills? Bill Clinton and Bill Cosby.

Well, Bill Cosby committed rape, not sexual harassment. For clinton, a Special Prosecutor abused his authority and was slapped down by Congress.

Secondly, Uncle Tom DID pay these women and settled at least some of the cases.

Herman Cain presidential campaign, 2012 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[frigidweirdo]

If you want me to focus on the question, can I suggest you cut the bravado? Too many people on here attack before they do anything else, and it's tiring.

Anyway, I answered that question.

As for equality being people having the same amount of money. No, that's not what I'm talking about. However when it comes to education, kids should all be given the chance to learn and to be able to make their way through life based on their abilities and no on how much money their parents have.

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There are people who don't aspire. I don't aspire to a stressful job. I have a job where I need to use my brain, I've done brain dead jobs before and I can't cope. So I work for okay money but it's never going to make me rich. Some aspire to even lower than this.

This isn't the point here. The point is that some people do aspire to higher things and struggle to get there for a variety of reasons.

As for your math skills, I'm not sure why you bothered because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. The govt spends a lot of money because there are 300 million people in the country. I'm not saying the govt spends wisely all the time or even most of the time, but it's not hard to spend that money when you're dealing with a massive budget for the armed forces, and you're spending heavily, too heavily on welfare, and other things.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

No you didn't answer the question, Today in Venezuela, the money he took from the producers to give to the non producers, how is life in Venezuela? Stop squirreling around with bogus answers because everyone there is miserable, as happens with Socialism all the time. If teachers teach how great socialism is, why don't those teachers work for free? Why do they want more pay raises putting them above the very people they say they are for? Hypocrite.

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There are people who don't aspire. I don't aspire to a stressful job. I have a job where I need to use my brain, I've done brain dead jobs before and I can't cope. So I work for okay money but it's never going to make me rich. Some aspire to even lower than this.

This isn't the point here. The point is that some people do aspire to higher things and struggle to get there for a variety of reasons.

As for your math skills, I'm not sure why you bothered because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. The govt spends a lot of money because there are 300 million people in the country. I'm not saying the govt spends wisely all the time or even most of the time, but it's not hard to spend that money when you're dealing with a massive budget for the armed forces, and you're spending heavily, too heavily on welfare, and other things.

Its not hard to spend that money when that is other peoples money. Just today Obama promised Vietnam 90 million of our tax dollars. Funny how he keeps spending money that doesn't belong on him. It doesn't bother you in the least to know YOUR money that you earn is being given to other people, some not even US citizens?

 

[frigidweirdo]

Yes, Chavez and Maduro have really messed things up. I'm not on here to promote these people. I'm saying what exists, not trying to do make belief. I'm not a socialist or communist. I answered the damn question, you wanted to know the benefits of the money. I showed that, people are more educated and people were getting better health care. That's a simple fact. Another fact is the price of oil dropped and Maduro was messing around with his finger up his ass and didn't deal with the situation.

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There are people who don't aspire. I don't aspire to a stressful job. I have a job where I need to use my brain, I've done brain dead jobs before and I can't cope. So I work for okay money but it's never going to make me rich. Some aspire to even lower than this.

This isn't the point here. The point is that some people do aspire to higher things and struggle to get there for a variety of reasons.

As for your math skills, I'm not sure why you bothered because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. The govt spends a lot of money because there are 300 million people in the country. I'm not saying the govt spends wisely all the time or even most of the time, but it's not hard to spend that money when you're dealing with a massive budget for the armed forces, and you're spending heavily, too heavily on welfare, and other things.

Its not hard to spend that money when that is other peoples money. Just today Obama promised Vietnam 90 million of our tax dollars. Funny how he keeps spending money that doesn't belong on him. It doesn't bother you in the least to know YOUR money that you earn is being given to other people, some not even US citizens?

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making. So the govt doesn't find it hard to spend the money. It's spend it for 300 million people.

Aid is something that has been given for a long time. In fact that sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years. You keep your allies sweet, and seeing what the US did to Vietnam in the first place.....

Does it worry me where money is going? Sure it does. I'm not wishing a blank check for the govt.

This isn't the issue of the topic and you've managed to go right off topic with this.

This is about socialism and communism. What does giving money to Vietnam have to do with either? (Other than Vietnam claiming to be a Communist country)

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

And I said , when the government took all the money away from the private citizens, who worked for it, then NO ONE had any money. Just like Detroit, Venezuela could of been VERY rich, but now with Socialism/Liberalism, everyone is equal, equally poor and equally miserable. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

View attachment 88432

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There are people who don't aspire. I don't aspire to a stressful job. I have a job where I need to use my brain, I've done brain dead jobs before and I can't cope. So I work for okay money but it's never going to make me rich. Some aspire to even lower than this.

This isn't the point here. The point is that some people do aspire to higher things and struggle to get there for a variety of reasons.

As for your math skills, I'm not sure why you bothered because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. The govt spends a lot of money because there are 300 million people in the country. I'm not saying the govt spends wisely all the time or even most of the time, but it's not hard to spend that money when you're dealing with a massive budget for the armed forces, and you're spending heavily, too heavily on welfare, and other things.

Its not hard to spend that money when that is other peoples money. Just today Obama promised Vietnam 90 million of our tax dollars. Funny how he keeps spending money that doesn't belong on him. It doesn't bother you in the least to know YOUR money that you earn is being given to other people, some not even US citizens?

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making. So the govt doesn't find it hard to spend the money. It's spend it for 300 million people.

Aid is something that has been given for a long time. In fact that sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years. You keep your allies sweet, and seeing what the US did to Vietnam in the first place.....

Does it worry me where money is going? Sure it does. I'm not wishing a blank check for the govt.

This isn't the issue of the topic and you've managed to go right off topic with this.

This is about socialism and communism. What does giving money to Vietnam have to do with either? (Other than Vietnam claiming to be a Communist country)

Socialism/Communism is all about giving away other peoples money to the point there isn't any money left. What part of that "don't" you understand?

 

[frigidweirdo]

I'm not really sure I see where you're coming from.

The first point is you say the govt takes money that people work for. Sure, people worked for this money, but without the government they wouldn't be earning half what they are. Look at countries where government takes a back seat, like Somalia, and see how successful individuals can be. Not very. So the govt is able to make people richer with the stability they give through the armed forces and the police and so on.

People are paying for services, simple as. If I earn my money and then buy food, it's not being taken from me, I'm paying for something.

In Russia in the 1990s the govt was almost non-existent. So the mafias ruled, and people paid 30% or there abouts of what they earned just to stop themselves being killed, and even then it might not work if your mafia wasn't as good as someone else's.

Then you have the infrastructure, the development (for example a lot of science research at the risky stages is paid for by the US govt, when it's proven to be profitable the big pharma companies come along and take the idea and make it profitable for themselves. Then the same pharma companies want to pay low taxes even though they're getting rich of the govt's development funding).

Maybe large companies should be charged for each of these separately rather than through tax.

30% for security. 10% for having an educated workforce, 20% for infrastructure, and add on other costs for things they end up using. See how they like that. 35% corporate tax is a steal. Those who pay 1% or whatever through tax breaks it's ridiculous.

Detroit didn't become broke because they "took money off people", it went broke because of the bankers, the wars, all the other things that led to a recession. There weren't any jobs. People without jobs don't pay much in tax except sales tax, and even then it doesn't matter if you have no money, so many people left, others stayed and the tax money dropped because the industry died.

Venezuela has always been poorer. Before it was at the hand of the USA. Go read some Gabriel Garcia Marquez, or have a look at the impact the US has had on Latin America, causing the continent to remain poor while the US profited massively.

Chavez got into power because so many poor people had been left out of society, the rich had it all their own way, they controlled politics, they spend money on themselves, oil money left the country and the country remained poor. Chavez tried to change the wrongs of the past, and failed. But had the US and the rich not acted as they had done in the past, keeping the poor impoverished, then Chavez wouldn't have had the base to stand on and become popular and easily able to win elections.

Without liberalism, you'd be a serf working for some overlord. Look at the history of liberalism.

Liberals made the Magna Carta, they made the English Bill of Rights, they were the driving force of the revolutionaries in the Americas, they made the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, they got rid of slavery and segregation, all the while the conservatives were trying to stop it all happening.

Don't tell me that liberalism makes people poor. Bad liberalism might, but then so too does bad conservatism.

You're just trying to claim all liberalism is the same. It's not.

IT IS. I guess you don't believe in FREE AGENCY? As I said before I worked for minimum wage(entry level) for about 2 years, first as a burger flipper then a stereo salesman, but realized that I would not go anywhere if I continued to have no marketable skills. Do you not understand this? Those who get government assistance(so they can continue to be enslaved by the government) don't NEED to better themselves, for good ole Uncle Sugar is there to take care of them(just like in Venezuela and Detroit), but when a government that was for the people, has turned into a behemoth that is out of control, it needs to tax EARNERS more and more to feed itself. Do you know what the Federal Tax that comes in? $3.274 Trillion Do you know that the government spends? $3.854 Trillion. We since Obama inherited the $9 trillion deficit he Obama has added over $10 Trillion. The most ever in the history of the US more than the first 43 presidents combined. Let me give you a quick math problem about how out of control this government is.

How long would it take you to spend $1,000,000,000,000 if you spent $1 ever second? That is 1 trillion dollars.
$1 x 60 seconds = $60 a minute.
$60 x 60 minuntes = $360 an hour.
$360 x 24 hours = $8,640 a day.
$8,640 x 365.25 = $3,1455,760 a year.
So how many years are we looking at to get that $1 Trillion?
$3,1455,760 x 1000 years = over $3 Billion dollars, not even close to that Trillion.
It would take over 33,000 years for "YOU" to spend 1 Trillion dollars, yet the government takes in over 3 times that amount and spends over 3 3/4 times that amount in just 1 year. When the government taxes people to the point they don't have any money left, then that government will go bankrupt. Liberalism, does the same thing over and over expecting a different result, but it always ends the same. DISASTER. That is what liberals call "FAIRNESS".

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

There are people who don't aspire. I don't aspire to a stressful job. I have a job where I need to use my brain, I've done brain dead jobs before and I can't cope. So I work for okay money but it's never going to make me rich. Some aspire to even lower than this.

This isn't the point here. The point is that some people do aspire to higher things and struggle to get there for a variety of reasons.

As for your math skills, I'm not sure why you bothered because it doesn't seem to have anything to do with this debate. The govt spends a lot of money because there are 300 million people in the country. I'm not saying the govt spends wisely all the time or even most of the time, but it's not hard to spend that money when you're dealing with a massive budget for the armed forces, and you're spending heavily, too heavily on welfare, and other things.

Its not hard to spend that money when that is other peoples money. Just today Obama promised Vietnam 90 million of our tax dollars. Funny how he keeps spending money that doesn't belong on him. It doesn't bother you in the least to know YOUR money that you earn is being given to other people, some not even US citizens?

I'm not sure what kind of argument you're making. So the govt doesn't find it hard to spend the money. It's spend it for 300 million people.

Aid is something that has been given for a long time. In fact that sort of thing has been going on for thousands of years. You keep your allies sweet, and seeing what the US did to Vietnam in the first place.....

Does it worry me where money is going? Sure it does. I'm not wishing a blank check for the govt.

This isn't the issue of the topic and you've managed to go right off topic with this.

This is about socialism and communism. What does giving money to Vietnam have to do with either? (Other than Vietnam claiming to be a Communist country)

Socialism/Communism is all about giving away other peoples money to the point there isn't any money left. What part of that "don't" you understand?

Well, the point that you're making is false, so I don't understand it. Is that clear?

 

[JoeB131]

Socialism/Communism is all about giving away other peoples money to the point there isn't any money left. What part of that "don't" you understand?

Except not really...

Okay, here's the thing. What is money? Money is a measure of the value of all the goods and services created by the labor of working people.

Now, in this wonderful capitalist system you admire so much, the top 1% has 43% of the wealth. They most certainly did not perform 43% of the labor. The system is merely such that they can divide the pie someone else baked.

So all socialism really is dividing the pie equally. Now, there's probably a lot of good reasons to NOT do it that way. If you already know that your slice of the pie is going to be a certain size no matter how much effort you put into it, then there's really no incentive to put in the effort, much less innovate and come up with new ideas.

But frankly, there's not much incentive in the system you support if you aren't part of the 1%.

So here's a crazy idea, how about not acting like those are the only two choices on the menu?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Socialism/Communism is all about giving away other peoples money to the point there isn't any money left. What part of that "don't" you understand?

Except not really...

Okay, here's the thing. What is money? Money is a measure of the value of all the goods and services created by the labor of working people.

Now, in this wonderful capitalist system you admire so much, the top 1% has 43% of the wealth. They most certainly did not perform 43% of the labor. The system is merely such that they can divide the pie someone else baked.

So all socialism really is dividing the pie equally. Now, there's probably a lot of good reasons to NOT do it that way. If you already know that your slice of the pie is going to be a certain size no matter how much effort you put into it, then there's really no incentive to put in the effort, much less innovate and come up with new ideas.

But frankly, there's not much incentive in the system you support if you aren't part of the 1%.

So here's a crazy idea, how about not acting like those are the only two choices on the menu?

If I am not mistaken, back in 2008 a certain presidential candidate ran on Hope and Change, the redistribution of wealth, the lowering the oceans and healing the planet. So after 7 3/4 years, why is it that with all the additional taxes that the bi racial president FORCED upon all of US, are the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer? Socialism/Communism/Liberalism/Marxism/Progressivism all do the same thing, a few liberal elites get UBER rich and the rest become peons to them. It happens ALL the time. Liberals love to take care of their own, even at the expense of the citizens. The richest woman in Venezuela is Hugo Chavez's daughter

Diario las Americas claims that Maria Gabriela Chavez, 35, has $4.2billion in assets held in American and Andorran banks

• Hugo Chavez famously declared 'being rich is bad' and during his lifetime railed against the wealthy for being lazy and gluttonous

 

[JoeB131]

If I am not mistaken, back in 2008 a certain presidential candidate ran on Hope and Change, ....?

Why did you just try to change the subject instead of discussing what I wrote?

Seriously, is this how you go through life?

"Waitress: "Would you like cream and sugar with that?"

You: "BUt but, but....Obama's a Communist Muslim who hates America!!!!"

Okay, when you want to discuss what people are talking about, instead of your bromides, lets us know, okay?

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

If I am not mistaken, back in 2008 a certain presidential candidate ran on Hope and Change, ....?

Why did you just try to change the subject instead of discussing what I wrote?

Seriously, is this how you go through life?

"Waitress: "Would you like cream and sugar with that?"

You: "BUt but, but....Obama's a Communist Muslim who hates America!!!!"

Okay, when you want to discuss what people are talking about, instead of your bromides, lets us know, okay?

You said

Now, in this wonderful capitalist system you admire so much, the top 1% has 43% of the wealth. They most certainly did not perform 43% of the labor.

I responded how that happened. Also you have no clue what the top 1% did to earn that wealth, other than hear the talking points that comes out of the rainbow house. I do know that many upper income earners have to work 80 hours a week, to make their business work. Let me tell you another item that you don't seem to grasp. Those who invest money in other companies, are taking a risk, but if the company takes off, then the risk is rewarded with dividends. Those poor, go into a 7/11 buy a 100 dollars of lottery tickets, usually walking out with 20 bucks. Don't give me shit Joe, about the rich and poor, I was poor, and worked my way out of it, like Herman Cain, or Emmit Smith did. Everyone in the US to the best of their abilities CAN achieve greatness, unless you have a moronic president who puts obstacles in the way every chance he can. You know, you didn't build that, your health care will cost you $2,500 less a year, those shovel ready jobs weren't (laugh) really shovel ready. Again, after 7 3/4 years of the most Socialist president ever in the US, are the rich, richer, and the poor, poorer?

 

[JoeB131]

I responded how that happened. A

No, you didn't. You went on another tiresome snivelly, whiny cry about the mean old Negro in the White House...

Don't give me shit Joe, about the rich and poor, I was poor, and worked my way out of it, like Herman Cain, or Emmit Smith did.

Good for you. But "I've got mine fuck you" isn't a policy.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I responded how that happened. A

No, you didn't. You went on another tiresome snivelly, whiny cry about the mean old Negro in the White House...

Don't give me shit Joe, about the rich and poor, I was poor, and worked my way out of it, like Herman Cain, or Emmit Smith did.

Good for you. But "I've got mine fuck you" isn't a policy.

Not Negro, but Bi-racial, shame you aren't smart enough to know that. Also, I have mine, and I show others how to achieve success, while you RACISTS, keep holding back the "Negro's", so they will continue to live on the plantation and vote for those who have enslaved them. Many of my friends of color have broken the shackles of liberalism, have made business of their own, employ many people, not sit in the parents basement, living off their parents healthcare, eating government cheese, smoking dope, and using their parents Netflix account, screwing their liberal floozy, creating more babies to abort, in or out of the womb. Yes, funny how you liberals love to talk how great Socialism is, yet socialism is all about death and poverty. That is the TRUTH. Always has been, always will be.

 

[JoeB131]

Not Negro, but Bi-racial, shame you aren't smart enough to know that. Also, I have mine, and I show others how to achieve success, while you RACISTS, keep holding back the "Negro's", so they will continue to live on the plantation and vote for those who have enslaved them. Many of my friends of color have broken the shackles of liberalism, have made business of their own, employ many people, not sit in the parents basement, living off their parents healthcare, eating government cheese, smoking dope, and using their parents Netflix account, screwing their liberal floozy, creating more babies to abort, in or out of the womb. Yes, funny how you liberals love to talk how great Socialism is, yet socialism is all about death and poverty. That is the TRUTH. Always has been, always will be.

Guy, I doubt you know any real people, colored or otherwise...

But to the point, for most working class Americans, Capitalism is a shit sandwich... which is why it's being rejected by both sides.
Trump isn't a free market capitalist, he's a fascist. Which is why so many of the one percent are rallying to Hillary. They know a nut when they see one.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Not Negro, but Bi-racial, shame you aren't smart enough to know that. Also, I have mine, and I show others how to achieve success, while you RACISTS, keep holding back the "Negro's", so they will continue to live on the plantation and vote for those who have enslaved them. Many of my friends of color have broken the shackles of liberalism, have made business of their own, employ many people, not sit in the parents basement, living off their parents healthcare, eating government cheese, smoking dope, and using their parents Netflix account, screwing their liberal floozy, creating more babies to abort, in or out of the womb. Yes, funny how you liberals love to talk how great Socialism is, yet socialism is all about death and poverty. That is the TRUTH. Always has been, always will be.

Guy, I doubt you know any real people, colored or otherwise...

But to the point, for most working class Americans, Capitalism is a shit sandwich... which is why it's being rejected by both sides.
Trump isn't a free market capitalist, he's a fascist. Which is why so many of the one percent are rallying to Hillary. They know a nut when they see one.

I guess you haven't see the polls of late.
Have to resort to name calling again (Fascism is a socialist).
Why would you vote for someone where the 1%ers are rallying to? Arent you for the people?
Yes, when you have someone who uses a private server for government is crazy.
Yes, when you lie that you only have 1 email device and found to have 13, that is crazy.
Yes when you are married and allow your Husband to abuse women, that is crazy.
Why would you vote for a crazy person?
Liberals vote for Socialism over and over, expecting a different result.

Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.
The roots of liberalism — and its associated madness — can be clearly identified by understanding how children develop from infancy to adulthood and how distorted development produces the irrational beliefs of the liberal mind. When the modern liberal mind whines about imaginary victims, rages against imaginary villains and seeks above all else to run the lives of persons competent to run their own lives, the neurosis of the liberal mind becomes painfully obvious.