Socialism = Capitalism plus

[impuretrash]

He specifically says "socialist-friendly". The term has clearly changed. It now means including having more "socialist" elements within the capitalist structure.

But boy, that's just too dang complicated.
.

Fudging and defiling the language is what authoritarians and their toadies do.

The mental midgets on the right are the ones that fucked up the language by calling social safety nets socialism.

How much of what other people earn is your fair share?

How much of what other people earn should be spent on bombs?

I bet you thought you had a point.

Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much.​

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

 

[daveman]

Fudging and defiling the language is what authoritarians and their toadies do.

The mental midgets on the right are the ones that fucked up the language by calling social safety nets socialism.

How much of what other people earn is your fair share?

How much of what other people earn should be spent on bombs?

I bet you thought you had a point.

Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much.​

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

No, you're talking about leftists. Leftists hate rural people.

Meanwhile, the fact that we spend more on social programs than on defense is inescapable. What's also inescapable is the fact that you did not know that, because you swallowed your Marxist programming without question.

 

[Confounding]

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

It's a complete deflection of your point that we overspend on the military. Typical partisan air jerking.

 

[danielpalos]

The goal of socialism is communism.

Vladimir Lenin

it merely requires social morals for free to achieve a Commune of Heaven on Earth.

 

[Tehon]

Instead of going on a rant trying to get Republicans to understand what Socialism actually is, and that without it, there is no Capitalism, I wonder if Republicans will ever understand the easy explanation that Bill Maher points out here? That in fact, for most of us, to be happy and to have piece of mind financially, it is in fact Socialism that delivers real Capitalism to most Americans? Let's see how many of them get it? And then, let's see how many of them can deliver an intelligent argument against it?

If you want to know what socialism is turn off the smug comedian and read Karl Marx. Then you will see how wrong you both are.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

Reagan was an idiot.

 

[impuretrash]

The mental midgets on the right are the ones that fucked up the language by calling social safety nets socialism.

How much of what other people earn is your fair share?

How much of what other people earn should be spent on bombs?

I bet you thought you had a point.

Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much.​

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

No, you're talking about leftists. Leftists hate rural people.

Meanwhile, the fact that we spend more on social programs than on defense is inescapable. What's also inescapable is the fact that you did not know that, because you swallowed your Marxist programming without question.

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

 

[daveman]

Instead of going on a rant trying to get Republicans to understand what Socialism actually is, and that without it, there is no Capitalism, I wonder if Republicans will ever understand the easy explanation that Bill Maher points out here? That in fact, for most of us, to be happy and to have piece of mind financially, it is in fact Socialism that delivers real Capitalism to most Americans? Let's see how many of them get it? And then, let's see how many of them can deliver an intelligent argument against it?

If you want to know what socialism is turn off the smug comedian and read Karl Marx. Then you will see how wrong you both are.

How do you tell a Communist? Well, it's someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It's someone who understands Marx and Lenin.

-- Ronald Reagan

Reagan was an idiot.

Reagan defeated the USSR.

That's why the left hates him.

 

[Confounding]

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

But look at all the good our vengeance and meddling did! Way more dead Americans and trillions in debt!

 

[daveman]

How much of what other people earn is your fair share?

How much of what other people earn should be spent on bombs?

I bet you thought you had a point.

Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much.​

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

No, you're talking about leftists. Leftists hate rural people.

Meanwhile, the fact that we spend more on social programs than on defense is inescapable. What's also inescapable is the fact that you did not know that, because you swallowed your Marxist programming without question.

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

Williamson is a moron.

And I'm right. You didn't know we spend more on social programs than on defense.

 

[impuretrash]

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

But look at all the good our vengeance and meddling did! Way more dead Americans and trillions in debt!

15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, that's why we need to invade Afghanistan and depose Saddam. Makes sense.

 

[impuretrash]

How much of what other people earn should be spent on bombs?

I bet you thought you had a point.

Recap: In GDP terms, we spend about a third on the military today compared to what we spent in the late 1950s. We spend almost exactly the same on interest on the debt. We spend 20 percent less on energy, transportation, the environment, and natural resources. And we spend almost four times as much on welfare. Again, that is in GDP terms, and our economy is a heck of a lot bigger than it was in 1957. As a share of all federal spending, welfare has gone from 23 percent of spending to 73 percent of federal spending. In constant-dollar terms, we spend 17.5 times as much. In nominal-dollar terms, we spend 150 times as much.​

**** the national review. Of course those warmongers would try and justify more money spent on American interventionism. These are the same people that hope rural communities would just hurry up and die.

No, you're talking about leftists. Leftists hate rural people.

Meanwhile, the fact that we spend more on social programs than on defense is inescapable. What's also inescapable is the fact that you did not know that, because you swallowed your Marxist programming without question.

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

Williamson is a moron.

And I'm right. You didn't know we spend more on social programs than on defense.

Bill Kristol is an anti American piece of shit too.
Bill Kristol: 'It's profoundly depressing and vulgar to hear an American president proclaim America first'

 

[Confounding]

Hey, kiss my ass. I ain't no marxist and if anyone here is acting on directives programmed into their brain, it's you. **** the neoconservative agenda that traded in social conservatism for globalization and never ending war.
National Review Writer: Working-Class Communities ‘Deserve To Die’

But look at all the good our vengeance and meddling did! Way more dead Americans and trillions in debt!

15 of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia, that's why we need to invade Afghanistan and depose Saddam. Makes sense.

It's all a big motherfucking game dude, and this partisan bullshit everybody is stuck in prevents us from banding together and striking down the real problems.

**** big bipartisan efforts to improve the entire ******* world! SOME ************ REFUSED TO BAKE A CAKE FOR GAY PEOPLE!!!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Instead of going on a rant trying to get Republicans to understand what Socialism actually is, and that without it, there is no Capitalism, I wonder if Republicans will ever understand the easy explanation that Bill Maher points out here? That in fact, for most of us, to be happy and to have piece of mind financially, it is in fact Socialism that delivers real Capitalism to most Americans? Let's see how many of them get it? And then, let's see how many of them can deliver an intelligent argument against it?

The only thing bill can point to is the point on his head. Quit getting your news from a dumb ass comedian like him

 

[BWK]

Instead of going on a rant trying to get Republicans to understand what Socialism actually is, and that without it, there is no Capitalism, I wonder if Republicans will ever understand the easy explanation that Bill Maher points out here? That in fact, for most of us, to be happy and to have piece of mind financially, it is in fact Socialism that delivers real Capitalism to most Americans? Let's see how many of them get it? And then, let's see how many of them can deliver an intelligent argument against it?

None of those countries are socialist.

They are all capitalist. So first off he's starting his false argument from lie. In fact, some of those places are higher on the economic freedom index than the US. They are not socialist at all. Not even close.

They are Socialist and Capitalists. Something we used to have. Except they have it even better than what we used to have it, because they have unuiversal health care. And, I don't see them whining to get rid of it.

He says socialism as a supplement to capitalism is good. Funny, because the French yellow jack protests seem to indicate otherwise. Why isn't it so good there? Maybe because taxes are so high to fund all their socialism, that when the government tried to rise taxes again to fund even more socialism, the entire country flew apart.

And the same is true of all those other countries as well. All of those countries are having problems funding their pensions, free education, and health care.

Really? Do tell. Do you have links explaining problems like we have, such as student loan debt that will take then fifty years to pay off, or HC costs they can't afford, or massive country wide credit card debt?

Leave it up to this guy to come up with the absolute dumbest argument possible... happiness ratings

. What does happiness have to do with socialism, or capitalism? Nothing.

It creates peace of mind about HC and financial relief from debt. That's something to crow about if you ask me.

You know what makes people happy? Having a family that is together.

And healthy and without financial burdens.

When momma leaves, because she wants welfare benefits, instead of an intact family, people are not happy.

Or when she's dead because she couldn't pay for her HC so now she's not around.

You know what makes people happy? Having the dignity and self respect to accomplish something with your life.[/'quote] You mean like paying for social programs through your job that insures your families health and financial sdtability that you don't get for free? Yes, that's "self respect and dignity."

When people live as wards of the state, collecting food stamps and welfare, and medicaid, they are not happy.

Which is why we need to get rid of the power grab of privilege for the select few in this country who own the bulk of the wealth and all the power.

Happiness as an argument is garbage.

So far your arguments have really sucked.

A perfect example is how unhappy women are about the pay gap. Then you read the research and find women are paid more than men. Google did that internal study, and found men were paid less on average, than their women employees. But that doesn't stop women from being unhappy about the mythical pay gap.

CSure would love to see who conducted that study.

I don't meet people sweating about healthcare or student loans.

I do. And I also know that there are those who are too dead to sweat about it any more from a lack of it.

Of course I'm around people smart enough to borrow as little as possible, and only get degrees in things that make them money. If you get a degree in Music Theory, and spend $100K doing it, that makes you a moron. Stop doing that.

Then why did corporate America make it available?

They do not all have strong Unions, and few have welfare. That's a myth. It's amazing how many people mindlessly follow edicts about places they have never lived.

Great, then provide a link where these countries are drowning in union depression?

One thing most of those happy countries do have in common... they are all culturally homogeneous. Some even still have taxes paying for the state churches of those countries.

And yes, that is part of why they are happy people. Having a culture that is common across the populace, results in happiness.

Churches by and large, are nothing more than business opportunities. But if they feel full filled go for it.

I love how he talks about how you don't have to worry about end up under a bridge, with socialism.

I'm sorry.... did we miss the memo about how California, the the largest socialist safety net in the union, is also the homeless capital of the world right now? Funny how the place with the most 'social safety net' so people don't end up under the bridge, have the most people under the bridge. Many places in the country are under the cloud of corporate greed and tent cities are the perfect example of a country in decline because of the greed. You think poverty is only in California? Lol! Think again;

Look at all those people who don't have to worry, thanks to that socialist safety net!

$12,000 for a baby, and in Finland it's $60?

Are you people dumb as crap, or what? $12,000 for a Baby? My sister had SIX kids, and she doesn't work. Only her husband does. You think she spent $72,000 when he earns less than the Median wage? And by the way, she seems happy, in their new house. I wager that's how they ended up with 6 kids.

The segment never mentioned insurance for a $12,000 dollar baby and the out of pocket expense. Maybe the $60 dollars is just talking about the out of pocket cost through the HC program as opposed to not having insurance with a $12,000 dollar child. My daughter is going to have a baby, and the cost is about right if she didn't have insurance.

And having a baby is $60 in Finland? Are you people really this incompetent? A person making $50,000 a year in the US, in Finland, would be subject to a 57% tax. That means they are losing $28,000 a year. That's every year, not just the year you had a baby.

Those people aren't living in the US, that's the difference.

So basically everything he said was crap, from start to finish, just like all left-wingers.

Lol! These Republican apples never fall far from the tree of emotional ignorance.

 

[Ricky LIbtardo]

Once again the lies and straw men...Scandinavia isn't socialist....They all have market-based economies.....A gigantic welfare/vassal state and being taxed to the point that your economies are utterly moribund, nearly non-existent economic mobility and disposal income, is greatly different from The State owning and operating the means of production.

Talk about others not knowing what socialism is.

Very few of these morons promoting Socialism for the United States have worked or lived in places like Holland and Norway, which they want to hold up as Utopias. Your reference of economic mobility is far and above these idiots' ability to understand. One of the things I found interesting about working in these countries was the only thing they really have as a tax deduction is interest expense. Basically, in order to avoid paying taxes you had to borrow money. So you either pay your income back in taxes or to banks. There's no way to accumulate capital to invest, and if you do have capital gains they are taxed at outrageous rates. Therefore you are limited in your ability to use capital appreciation to make a better life for yourself.

Every person I met over the years was up to their ass in debt. Very little disposable income. All their money went to living expense, interest payments, and taxes.

Um, excuse me, but you want to talk about debt? Seriously? What about student loan debt, or catastrophic illness debt, or banks setting up bad mortgage debt, or the debt accrued from income inequality debt and the entrapment of credit card debt? You certainly aren't going to accumulate capital like that. There's a thousand and one ways to be way worse off with the system we have now through total Corporatism, as opposed to the mixed bag of Socialism and Capitalism.

At the end of the day, they don't have to worry about life or death when it comes to paying for a catastrophic medical expense.

You don't know shit about it as you've obviously never lived or worked in a Socialist country or you'd know what I was talking about. Socialism is for idiots too ******* lazy to take responsibility for themselves. They want the Nanny State to wipe their ass for them.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Scandinavia isn't socialist....They all have market-based economies.

Cool.

Let's do that then.

**** no.

Why? Because it'd elevate the lowest Americans too much and hugely change our society for the better?

People on the right that call themselves nationalists deserve to be laughed at.

Can you point to one socialist country, one whose government owns the means of production, and show us how elevated those become have become?

Last I checked, they weren't elevated, they were 6 feet under.

 

[TNHarley]

I understand what you are talking about.
I just think it appeases the lazy and punishes the working class.
Im pro responsibility and individual liberty above anything else. Oddball is the same way.
A lot of americams like us simply dont want that much govt. We are a rarity. Our country is a rarity. And we are slowly dying to go the way of everyone else.
And whats worse is, it means America dies in vain.

Focusing on improving America from the bottom up is how we will be able to compete with China for the future. Our way of life will be swallowed by theirs. Scandinavian countries still have a strong middle class and working hard is rewarded. They just don't have a lot of billionaires. I'm alright with that.

All income over 60k in scandanavia is confiscated at 60 percent. Thats ridiculous.
Their VATs are so ridiculous they mostly hurt the poor and lower middle class.

 

[Confounding]

Can you point to one socialist country

Are you completely ******* retarded? Your post is a non-sequitur Go read the conversation that took place 50 or 1,000 more times and maybe you'll be able to contribute without embarrassing yourself.

 

[TNHarley]

Scandanavias corporate rax rate is close to us.
Which is funny. **** the middle class but let corporations excell and give lavish lifestyles.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

Can you point to one socialist country

Are you completely ******* retarded? Your post is a non-sequitur Go read the conversation that took place 50 or 1,000 more times and maybe you'll be able to contribute without embarrassing yourself.

Nice partial quote.

Point to a socialist country that commands the means of production, show us how elevated they are.