So you want better paying jobs?

[Correll]

No... Socialism provides for the collective of the people... where do they get their resources?

In the usual and customary manner. Socialism requires social moralsvfor free, and it may include a work ethic.

Any more diversions?

Social morals for free?

What the **** does that mean?

That you don't have a Social clue or a Social Cause, and are irrelevant as a result.

It was a rhetorical question.

I knew you would not give a real answer.

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

 

[danielpalos]

I'm just basically studying the downward and upward flow of the economy on a graph. As for demand for labor I had an Idea. What if you gave tax breaks to businesses who hired new workers using a certain percentage. Meaning for every business who can only afford to hire one worker and that hires another gets a tax break and a business that can only afford to hire a hundred workers and hires a hundred more also gets a tax break.

Have you ever stopped to think about why (in principle) we tax businesses? You may say, well, they make a profit... so what? It's what a business has to do... it's the whole idea. Well, they should have to pay a certain amount in taxes on the profits... Why? The CEO gets an income, he pays income tax on that. The employees get incomes, they pay tax on that. If the business spends their profit on something, they likely pay taxes on the transaction. But most of their profit is going back into the business. It's how business grows and expands. Why do we tax that?

A simple conservative principle that can always be applied to taxation: The more you tax anything, the less of it you will have. Every chart and graph that has ever legitimately been produced, bears this fact out. So why do we want to tax something that we actually WANT more to happen?

We want businesses to grow. People get wealthier. Jobs are created. The economy is stimulated. Cut the corporate tax rates and let business grow and prosper. Stop listening to idiotic Socialists who think we're somehow 'punishing the evil capitalist' by levying taxes on him.

How typical of the right. Why not end the work tax for labor instead of artificial Persons of capital wealth?

Why do you purposefully use obtuse jargon?

How typical of the right, blaming others for their own incompetence.

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

 

[danielpalos]

In the usual and customary manner. Socialism requires social moralsvfor free, and it may include a work ethic.

Any more diversions?

Social morals for free?

What the **** does that mean?

That you don't have a Social clue or a Social Cause, and are irrelevant as a result.

It was a rhetorical question.

I knew you would not give a real answer.

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

 

[Correll]

Have you ever stopped to think about why (in principle) we tax businesses? You may say, well, they make a profit... so what? It's what a business has to do... it's the whole idea. Well, they should have to pay a certain amount in taxes on the profits... Why? The CEO gets an income, he pays income tax on that. The employees get incomes, they pay tax on that. If the business spends their profit on something, they likely pay taxes on the transaction. But most of their profit is going back into the business. It's how business grows and expands. Why do we tax that?

A simple conservative principle that can always be applied to taxation: The more you tax anything, the less of it you will have. Every chart and graph that has ever legitimately been produced, bears this fact out. So why do we want to tax something that we actually WANT more to happen?

We want businesses to grow. People get wealthier. Jobs are created. The economy is stimulated. Cut the corporate tax rates and let business grow and prosper. Stop listening to idiotic Socialists who think we're somehow 'punishing the evil capitalist' by levying taxes on him.

How typical of the right. Why not end the work tax for labor instead of artificial Persons of capital wealth?

Why do you purposefully use obtuse jargon?

How typical of the right, blaming others for their own incompetence.

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

Irrelevant.

No one else knows.

 

[Correll]

Social morals for free?

What the **** does that mean?

That you don't have a Social clue or a Social Cause, and are irrelevant as a result.

It was a rhetorical question.

I knew you would not give a real answer.

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

 

[danielpalos]

How typical of the right. Why not end the work tax for labor instead of artificial Persons of capital wealth?

Why do you purposefully use obtuse jargon?

How typical of the right, blaming others for their own incompetence.

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

Irrelevant.

No one else knows.

dude, everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know.

 

[danielpalos]

That you don't have a Social clue or a Social Cause, and are irrelevant as a result.

It was a rhetorical question.

I knew you would not give a real answer.

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

 

[Correll]

Why do you purposefully use obtuse jargon?

How typical of the right, blaming others for their own incompetence.

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

Irrelevant.

No one else knows.

dude, everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know.

Name one other person that knows.

 

[Correll]

It was a rhetorical question.

I knew you would not give a real answer.

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting that there is a price to using normal words and meanings?

I already told you how to do it.

"with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it."

 

[danielpalos]

How typical of the right, blaming others for their own incompetence.

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

Irrelevant.

No one else knows.

dude, everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know.

Name one other person that knows.

Like I said. Everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know. It is a simple process of elimination, dear.

 

[danielpalos]

dear, you got a real answer. You are merely too incompetent to understand it. Now we know why the right has nothing but repeal instead of better solutions at lower cost.

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting that there is a price to using normal words and meanings?

I already told you how to do it.

"with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it."

No dear. Simply coming up with red herrings and that form of diversion, is still just a fallacy.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting that there is a price to using normal words and meanings?

I already told you how to do it.

"with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it."

No dear. Simply coming up with red herrings and that form of diversion, is still just a fallacy.

I think we all agree that DP does not speak English well. Don't know if its learning disability or something else.

 

[Boss]

Not true. Any "socialist" program we have is the direct result of free market capitalist system.

There are countless examples of people who came from abject poverty to be financially successful... not a single example exists of anyone who got there because of welfare handouts.

Chairman Mao Zedong implemented your idea in China... a system devoid of capitalism, devoted to total socialism and communism. In fact, you socialist lefties would have loved it... he rounded up all the "evil greedy capitalists" and executed them. Took their property and wealth and installed his Socialist system. His country withdrew from capitalist trade on the world stage and became isolationists.

If ever there was a time in human history to prove that Socialism was greater, this was it. The results were-- it plunged China into economic darkness for 40 years. Millions upon millions starved to death. As the people who sparked this revolution became more and more frustrated and impatient, they rose up to protest and were also executed. Millions more died and were dumped into mass graves. And it was not until after Mao's death and reformers took over that things for China began to change for the better. This has been 100% due to capitalism.

Meanwhile, during the same 40-year time span, thousands and thousands of people in America went from poor and middle class to wealthy beyond imagination. Thousands upon thousands of millionaires and billionaires were created as a result of a vibrant free market capitalist system.

Yes dear, it was when capitalism failed us that socialism bailed us out.

Really? Where did Socialism get resources?

The collective of the People. It really is that simple, except to the right.

No... Socialism provides for the collective of the people... where do they get their resources?

In the usual and customary manner. Socialism requires social morals for free, and it may include a work ethic.

Any more diversions?

It's not a diversion, I asked a question and you've still not answered it.
You claimed when capitalism failed, Socialism bailed us out...
I asked: Where did Socialism get resources?
So far, you've answered: The collective of the people.
But Socialism provides for the collective of the people.
Then you respond: Socialism requires social morals for free and it may include a work ethic.
That sentence doesn't even make any sense. A commonality in most of your posts.

Let's talk about "work ethic" since you did mention that...

In a free market capitalist system, a strong worth ethic results in greater wealth acquisition. In a Socialist system, there is no benefit. This is one of the primary reasons Socialist systems always fail. Having a strong work ethic is pointless when your work doesn't benefit you or your family. In the Socialist "everyone for the collective" ideology, the individual's work ethic declines over time. Eventually, the individual work ethic devolves into whatever minimal requirement can be maintained. Socialism fails because it fails to recognize the potential in the individual or reward it accordingly.

Let's imagine a Socialist and Capitalist widget company. You work for the Socialist company and I work for the Capitalist company. Your company says you need to produce 100 widgets per day minimum. You can't make more money by producing more than 100 widgets and you must remain at your job until the 100 widgets are completed. My company says I need to produce 100 widgets per day but if I make more than 100, I can get a bonus of $1 per widget. If I produce less than 100, my pay is reduced accordingly. Which system is going to result in greater production? As you can see, it will be the Capitalist system because "strong work ethic" is being rewarded. I'm going to produce as many widgets as I can because the more I produce the more money I make.

So your "strong work ethic" is rewarded in a Capitalist system and taken for granted in a Socialist system. A strong work ethic is only worthwhile if there is a benefit to the individual.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes dear, it was when capitalism failed us that socialism bailed us out.

Really? Where did Socialism get resources?

The collective of the People. It really is that simple, except to the right.

No... Socialism provides for the collective of the people... where do they get their resources?

In the usual and customary manner. Socialism requires social morals for free, and it may include a work ethic.

Any more diversions?

It's not a diversion, I asked a question and you've still not answered it.
You claimed when capitalism failed, Socialism bailed us out...
I asked: Where did Socialism get resources?
So far, you've answered: The collective of the people.
But Socialism provides for the collective of the people.
Then you respond: Socialism requires social morals for free and it may include a work ethic.
That sentence doesn't even make any sense. A commonality in most of your posts.

Let's talk about "work ethic" since you did mention that...

In a free market capitalist system, a strong worth ethic results in greater wealth acquisition. In a Socialist system, there is no benefit. This is one of the primary reasons Socialist systems always fail. Having a strong work ethic is pointless when your work doesn't benefit you or your family. In the Socialist "everyone for the collective" ideology, the individual's work ethic declines over time. Eventually, the individual work ethic devolves into whatever minimal requirement can be maintained. Socialism fails because it fails to recognize the potential in the individual or reward it accordingly.

Let's imagine a Socialist and Capitalist widget company. You work for the Socialist company and I work for the Capitalist company. Your company says you need to produce 100 widgets per day minimum. You can't make more money by producing more than 100 widgets and you must remain at your job until the 100 widgets are completed. My company says I need to produce 100 widgets per day but if I make more than 100, I can get a bonus of $1 per widget. If I produce less than 100, my pay is reduced accordingly. Which system is going to result in greater production? As you can see, it will be the Capitalist system because "strong work ethic" is being rewarded. I'm going to produce as many widgets as I can because the more I produce the more money I make.

So your "strong work ethic" is rewarded in a Capitalist system and taken for granted in a Socialist system. A strong work ethic is only worthwhile if there is a benefit to the individual.

dear, any command economy can simply command economize to meet any exigency. It really is that simple and why I only need one liners for most rebuttals.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

So your "strong work ethic" is rewarded in a Capitalist system.

and under capitalism the work ethic is directed, like a laser, at providing the best possible jobs and products in the entire world as a matter of survival. Nothing can be more moral.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

dear, any command economy can simply command economize to meet any exigency.

100% stupid and liberal? IF so why didn't East Germans command their economy to do as a well as the West German capitalist economy???

See why we are positive that the liberal will always be purely stupid.

 

[Correll]

The purpose of language is that using agreed upon sounds to mean certain things, allows communication of information.


YOur choice to misuse words with meanings that no one else knows, defeats that purpose.

That is no reflection on me.

dude, I knew what that meant before the end of primary education.

Irrelevant.

No one else knows.

dude, everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know.

Name one other person that knows.

Like I said. Everyone but the clueless and the Causeless know. It is a simple process of elimination, dear.

So name one.

 

[Correll]

Define "social morals for free" with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.

If you can.

Please.

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting that there is a price to using normal words and meanings?

I already told you how to do it.

"with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it."

No dear. Simply coming up with red herrings and that form of diversion, is still just a fallacy.

It wasn't a red herring. It was my best guess as to the meaning of your odd post.

Your posts are meaningless.

To anyone but MAYBE yourself.

 

[Correll]

Didn't we cover this already? Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast, dear.

"Capital morals for a price is the comparison and contrast,"


Is just as obtuse as what you said before.

I specified.


with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it.


If you actually tried, you failed badly.

It seems clear to me. Want to advance any lines of reasoning to help you out, for free instead of for a capital prce?

WTF does that mean?

Are you suggesting that there is a price to using normal words and meanings?

I already told you how to do it.

"with normal word usage and sentence structure so that any normal person can understand it."

No dear. Simply coming up with red herrings and that form of diversion, is still just a fallacy.

I think we all agree that DP does not speak English well. Don't know if its learning disability or something else.

I think he has bought into the myth that brilliant people can't be understood by regular minds.

So he thinks by being obtuse, that he is making or proving himself to be brilliant.

It's pathetic nonsense of course.

 

[Boss]

dear, any command economy can simply command economize to meet any exigency. It really is that simple and why I only need one liners for most rebuttals.

It seems as though you believe in magic. You've not answered my question about where the resources come from. You seem to be hung in a circular reasoning loop. Now you are into some kind of fantasy about "command economy" as if the government can simply command their economy to get better.

As the human spirit is crushed by a Socialist system that fails to deliver, this "command" element does come into play... in the form of ever-increasing commands from the ruling class. You are commanded to work harder and for less benefit. If you protest, someone is commanded to put a bullet in your head.