If capitalism works why are you all getting government handouts ?

[jc456]

Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.

Hug a tree, Troll.

CO2 101: Why Is Carbon Dioxide Bad?

Did you just post that? How do plants live?

I bet you think oxygen! Hahaha hahaha

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Carbon dioxide isn't pollution.

Hug a tree, Troll.

CO2 101: Why Is Carbon Dioxide Bad?

You found an idiot, congrats! Still not pollution.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Monopolies are a capitalist wankfest. They spend a lot of time trying to destroy competition.

No fair, only government should be allowed to destroy competition, eh comrade?

 

[LoneLaugher]

You must have thought I said “unregulated”. I didn’t.

If you say it must be regulated, I thought you had an example of unregulated capitalism that did not work.

I say capitalism works better, unregulated. Sadly that has never been tried.

Why hasn’t it been tried?

So you have no example to prove what you stated, just thought I would make that clear by asking if you had, before I stated the obvious.

You avoided the question.

 

[georgephillip]

It didn't fail, America kicked its ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Explanations_of_Soviet_dissolution_in_historiography

"Historiography on Soviet dissolution can be roughly classified in two groups, namely intentionalist accounts and structuralist accounts.

"Intentionalist accounts contend that Soviet collapse was not inevitable and resulted from the policies and decisions of specific individuals (usually Gorbachev and Yeltsin).

"One characteristic example of intentionalist writing is historian Archie Brown's The Gorbachev Factor, which argues Gorbachev was the main force in Soviet politics at least in the period 1985–1988 and even later largely spearheaded the political reforms and developments as opposed to being led by events.[138]

"This was especially true of the policies of perestroika and glasnost, market initiatives and foreign policy stance as political scientist George Breslauer has seconded, labelling Gorbachev a 'man of the events.'[139]

"In a slightly different vein, David Kotz and Fred Weir have contended that Soviet elites were responsible for spurring on both nationalism and capitalism from which they could personally benefit (this is also demonstrated by their continued presence in the higher economic and political echelons of post-Soviet republics).

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It didn't fail, America kicked its ass.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dissolution_of_the_Soviet_Union#Explanations_of_Soviet_dissolution_in_historiography

"Historiography on Soviet dissolution can be roughly classified in two groups, namely intentionalist accounts and structuralist accounts.

"Intentionalist accounts contend that Soviet collapse was not inevitable and resulted from the policies and decisions of specific individuals (usually Gorbachev and Yeltsin).

"One characteristic example of intentionalist writing is historian Archie Brown's The Gorbachev Factor, which argues Gorbachev was the main force in Soviet politics at least in the period 1985–1988 and even later largely spearheaded the political reforms and developments as opposed to being led by events.[138]

"This was especially true of the policies of perestroika and glasnost, market initiatives and foreign policy stance as political scientist George Breslauer has seconded, labelling Gorbachev a 'man of the events.'[139]

"In a slightly different vein, David Kotz and Fred Weir have contended that Soviet elites were responsible for spurring on both nationalism and capitalism from which they could personally benefit (this is also demonstrated by their continued presence in the higher economic and political echelons of post-Soviet republics).

We put a boot in your ass.

 

[Correll]

every time a politician comes up with a plan to encourage behavior, by offering tax breaks,

he is creating a system that can be used to avoid taxes.


the problem is the politicians desire for total control, not the people playing by the rules to win.

Giant corporations control government.

Ralph Nader: Ranking Infinite Greed, Power And Controls Of Giant Corporations - OpEd - Eurasia Review

"Global giant companies, aided and abetted by their corporate attorneys and accountants, can literally decide how little taxes they are going to pay by shifting profits and expenses among different tax haven countries such as Ireland, Luxembourg, and Panama.

"These same companies then proceed to lobby any nation, including most prominently the United States.

"Congress and the White House are pushed to cut formal tax rates, pack the tax laws with loopholes, and lower further the effective tax rate.

"The formal top tax rate for billions of company profits is now 21%, while the actual tax rate is lower – much lower for banks, insurance companies, drug companies, and behemoth tech companies like Apple that master tax avoidance."

nothing in your post, supports your claim.

 

[georgephillip]

Capitalism works, yes. Government handouts don't change that fact.

Capitalism works because of government "handouts."

Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Capitalism works, yes. Government handouts don't change that fact.

Capitalism works because of government "handouts."

Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period

Short term loans that are repaid the next day, next week or next month aren't handouts.

 

[airplanemechanic]

i used the first stimulus check to pay for materials to build a built-in in my house. i plan to use a second, if i get it to help pay for a new kitchen in my rental property.

i'm not a huge fan of just handing out money. i have serious doubts about, all of this. but if they are handing it out, i will spend it to contribute to the "Stimulus" effect they are going for.

You do realize you don't have to spend the money to help the economy right? You can put it in the bank and the bank can then use it to lend to people in loans. That way you keep the money, you make interest on it, AND you help out your fellow countryman. A win-win-win situation if you ask me.

 

[georgephillip]

yep. massive boom, though most of the reagan years and nearly all of the bush years. slight recession and then booming back, well before clinton took office.

Yep.
Got a link?

Reagan’s Recession

"In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future.

"A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months.

"Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse.

"The public also smiled on the newly elected president.

"In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration’s economic policies would make their family’s financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%).

"Just 37% said Reagan’s policies would make their family finances worse.

"A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy.

"A 54%-majority said Reagan’s policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better."

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

yep. massive boom, though most of the reagan years and nearly all of the bush years. slight recession and then booming back, well before clinton took office.

Yep.
Got a link?

Reagan’s Recession

"In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future.

"A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months.

"Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse.

"The public also smiled on the newly elected president.

"In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration’s economic policies would make their family’s financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%).

"Just 37% said Reagan’s policies would make their family finances worse.

"A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy.

"A 54%-majority said Reagan’s policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better."

Volcker had to start a recession to finally kill double digit inflation.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

$1200 is a government handout? $1200 is much less than .025% of the tax I have paid.

Sorry, the OP is a fail, had the government gave me $120,000 we could call that a handout. But when the amount is a tiny amount of the money they have confiscated from me over the years, that is not a handout.

You get other stuff for your taxes.

 

[elektra]

You get other stuff for your taxes.

Brilliant, you must be grade school educated, are you? Tell us! Tell us more!

 

[jc456]

Capitalism works, yes. Government handouts don't change that fact.

Capitalism works because of government "handouts."

Federal Reserve Admits It Pumped More than $6 Trillion to Wall Street in Recent Six Week Period

Short term loans that are repaid the next day, next week or next month aren't handouts.

Shh you’re trying to teach someone disinterested

 

[jc456]

$1200 is a government handout? $1200 is much less than .025% of the tax I have paid.

Sorry, the OP is a fail, had the government gave me $120,000 we could call that a handout. But when the amount is a tiny amount of the money they have confiscated from me over the years, that is not a handout.

You get other stuff for your taxes.

Like?

 

[22lcidw]

$1200 is a government handout? $1200 is much less than .025% of the tax I have paid.

Sorry, the OP is a fail, had the government gave me $120,000 we could call that a handout. But when the amount is a tiny amount of the money they have confiscated from me over the years, that is not a handout.

You get other stuff for your taxes.

How many people are living well with comforts in this world Tommy? Now there can be people content not in that and happy. So if there are 8 billion people and 1 billion living with comforts let us go totally socialistic. Everyone living the same. Of course if you are in the 1 billion club., you will have to lose 7/8 ths of your comforts to start. Remember....everyone lives the same. If you live off of 80 thousand dollars/pounds a year, you now live off of 10 thousand. That's draconian but the direction the comfort living people will head.

 

[beagle9]

If communism works, why do millions starve to death?

Capitalism has also starved millions.
Care to speculate on why?

Famine in India - Wikipedia.

"The first major famine that took place under British rule was the Bengal Famine of 1770.

"About a quarter to a third of the population of Bengal starved to death in about a ten-month period.

"East India Company's raising of taxes disastrously coincided with this famine[69] and exacerbated it, even if the famine was not caused by the British colonial government."

Why would you blame capitalism for a drought and two failed rice crops?

Is it because you're a moron?

He figures that government could have insulated those crops against that drought because the government can control the weather, and if it can't do that, then it would have stored hundreds of tons of that rice in government owned storage bins just encase.

The problems involved is that government corruption would or could use the crisis in order to get leverage over the serfs, and the government would then ration the rice from it's hand in order to make the serfs think that government is their only hope to survive. This is the Democrat way, and it is their vision in life.

Davey Crocket covered the problem in a speech on the house floor in 1835 ?....

.

 

[beagle9]

yep. massive boom, though most of the reagan years and nearly all of the bush years. slight recession and then booming back, well before clinton took office.

Yep.
Got a link?

Reagan’s Recession

"In the spring of 1981, shortly before the onset of the painful recession, most Americans were optimistic about their economic future.

"A Gallup survey at the time found that 48% of the public believed the financial position of their household would be better in the next 12 months.

"Another 35% believed it would stay the same, while only 15% thought it would get worse.

"The public also smiled on the newly elected president.

"In a May poll, nearly half of Americans said the Reagan administration’s economic policies would make their family’s financial situation much better (8%) or somewhat better (41%).

"Just 37% said Reagan’s policies would make their family finances worse.

"A year later, in September 1982, with the unemployment rate at 10.1%, most Americans were far from pleased with the state of the economy.

"A 54%-majority said Reagan’s policies had made their personal financial situation worse; just 34% said the policies had made their situation better."

Wouldn't nobody or anyone have any problem with who it is or by what party it is that can work the economy to the nations liking, but what has happened is that the Demoncrats went off the rail's big time bad. Because of this, they are rejected and left to their own screwed up policies and/or ways of thinking to stew in. Everytime you see Chuck Schumer and Pelosi walk up to a microphone like they are absolutely theeeee most powerful people in this nation, one has to laugh, and then think to oneself "you are kidding me right" ?????

 

[georgephillip]

Volcker had to start a recession to finally kill double digit inflation

Who/what caused double digit inflation?

How the Vietnam War Affects You Today