Taxing the wealthy more will have little to no impact on your life or anyone around you

[danielpalos]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

The fruit of capitalism pays for all our social bennies, little buddy, including but not limited to the medical and scientific advancements that make things like our communication possible on this forum.

dear, you are confusing capital with capitalism. we have an official (Peoples') Mint.

 

[Conservative65]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

 

[SAYIT]

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

Capitalists don't want to "socialize their costs" ... they want gov't to stop socializing their profits.

Every rational American wants to minimize their federal income tax liability and no group has done that better than the bottom 47% which pays NOTHING.

The fruit of capitalism pays for all our social bennies, little buddy, including but not limited to the medical and scientific advancements that make things like our communication possible on this forum.

dear, you are confusing capital with capitalism. we have an official (Peoples') Mint.

You are again confusing the ability to print money with the ability to earn it, Princess.

 

[danielpalos]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

 

[Conservative65]

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

Capitalists don't want to "socialize their costs" ... they want gov't to stop socializing their profits.

Every rational American wants to minimize their federal income tax liability and no group has done that better than the bottom 47% which pays NOTHING.

The fruit of capitalism pays for all our social bennies, little buddy, including but not limited to the medical and scientific advancements that make things like our communication possible on this forum.

dear, you are confusing capital with capitalism. we have an official (Peoples') Mint.

You are again confusing the ability to print money with the ability to earn it, Princess.

yes, they do if it helps their bottom line, dear.

and, capital doesn't care one way or the other or we would not need social laws regarding possession.

 

[danielpalos]

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

 

[Brain357]

Creates government dependence, more need for welfare.

How can it create government dependence before anyone has become dependent on the government?

? Walmart for example pays so little that employees collect welfare. By paying so little walmart is creating government dependence and increasing the size of government. Meanwhile the waltons make billions each year not working. If they paid enough that employees were not on welfare it would decrease government dependence. Before you know it those people would probably want tax breaks.

How long have you been on this planet anyway?

For your information, minimum wage has always been that--minimum. So why focus on Walmart? Because you were told to focus on Walmart.

Walmart is no different than K-Mart, than Target, than Home Depot, than True Value Hardware, than any other entry level job. They all pay minimum wage.

When the left wants to brainwash people, they show you or tell you about the lowly shelf stocker at Walmart. Well soooorrrry. I'm sorry you didn't get an education or secure a trade, but that's not Walmart's fault.

What the left doesn't tell you is how well Walmart pays their managers, their warehouse people, their truck drivers, their office staff, everybody else but that floor washer you are so obsessed with.

Minimum wage is nothing new either. When I first got out into the workforce, minimum wage was $3.25 per hour. Yes, that was some years ago, but you still couldn't afford to support yourself. So what did we do if we were stuck at a minimum wage job? We worked more hours. We'd work 10 hour days plus the weekend if need be. If your job didn't offer weekend work, you found another job for the weekends. We would try to advance ourselves at the job we had. But what we didn't do is go on some welfare program because we had too much pride and welfare programs back then didn't pay anything.

Your rant has little to do with my point. Picked Walmart cause they are the largest employer. Like I said, paying so little increases government dependence.

The alternative being many more unemployed people who would be totally dependent on gov't for their survival. Is that really what you want?
The problem isn't low wages but rather the knowledge that if one works a part-time job at WalMart, the gov't will supplement that income, thus making the need for better skills or a second job unnecessary.

Well if you want small government the alternative is they get paid enough to not be on welfare.

 

[Conservative65]

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

 

[danielpalos]

How can it create government dependence before anyone has become dependent on the government?

? Walmart for example pays so little that employees collect welfare. By paying so little walmart is creating government dependence and increasing the size of government. Meanwhile the waltons make billions each year not working. If they paid enough that employees were not on welfare it would decrease government dependence. Before you know it those people would probably want tax breaks.

How long have you been on this planet anyway?

For your information, minimum wage has always been that--minimum. So why focus on Walmart? Because you were told to focus on Walmart.

Walmart is no different than K-Mart, than Target, than Home Depot, than True Value Hardware, than any other entry level job. They all pay minimum wage.

When the left wants to brainwash people, they show you or tell you about the lowly shelf stocker at Walmart. Well soooorrrry. I'm sorry you didn't get an education or secure a trade, but that's not Walmart's fault.

What the left doesn't tell you is how well Walmart pays their managers, their warehouse people, their truck drivers, their office staff, everybody else but that floor washer you are so obsessed with.

Minimum wage is nothing new either. When I first got out into the workforce, minimum wage was $3.25 per hour. Yes, that was some years ago, but you still couldn't afford to support yourself. So what did we do if we were stuck at a minimum wage job? We worked more hours. We'd work 10 hour days plus the weekend if need be. If your job didn't offer weekend work, you found another job for the weekends. We would try to advance ourselves at the job we had. But what we didn't do is go on some welfare program because we had too much pride and welfare programs back then didn't pay anything.

Your rant has little to do with my point. Picked Walmart cause they are the largest employer. Like I said, paying so little increases government dependence.

The alternative being many more unemployed people who would be totally dependent on gov't for their survival. Is that really what you want?
The problem isn't low wages but rather the knowledge that if one works a part-time job at WalMart, the gov't will supplement that income, thus making the need for better skills or a second job unnecessary.

Well if you want small government the alternative is they get paid enough to not be on welfare.

just more propaganda and rhetoric? why not end our socialist, War on Drugs.

 

[danielpalos]

how does that work for corporate welfare? in any case, i won't quibble labels in this discussion. i agree to imply crony forms of capitalism when i claim capital intents and purposes.

because that is socializing costs for others via public accommodation. why not insist capitalist go not-for-the-profit-of-lucre when engaging their subjective value of morals.

Equality is a social moral. Why do the wealthiest object to paying for the finest economy money can buy?

No such thing as corporate welfare. That's a Liberal term.

Equality of results? That's what those who won't do for themselves expect others to provide to them.

simple denial won't work on me. it is an analogy for comparison and contrast. corporate welfare has even paid multimillion dollar bonuses while on means tested corporate welfare as a privilege and immunity; why are there more stringent means testing for the least wealthy?

Again, no such thing as corporate welfare.

thank you for ceding the point and the argument. you must explain why there is no such thing as corporate welfare.

You must explain how those actually paying taxes are receiving welfare. No such thing.

everybody pays taxes. only the Right is disingenuous to claim Only income taxes are real taxes.

 

[Brain357]

? Walmart for example pays so little that employees collect welfare. By paying so little walmart is creating government dependence and increasing the size of government. Meanwhile the waltons make billions each year not working. If they paid enough that employees were not on welfare it would decrease government dependence. Before you know it those people would probably want tax breaks.

How long have you been on this planet anyway?

For your information, minimum wage has always been that--minimum. So why focus on Walmart? Because you were told to focus on Walmart.

Walmart is no different than K-Mart, than Target, than Home Depot, than True Value Hardware, than any other entry level job. They all pay minimum wage.

When the left wants to brainwash people, they show you or tell you about the lowly shelf stocker at Walmart. Well soooorrrry. I'm sorry you didn't get an education or secure a trade, but that's not Walmart's fault.

What the left doesn't tell you is how well Walmart pays their managers, their warehouse people, their truck drivers, their office staff, everybody else but that floor washer you are so obsessed with.

Minimum wage is nothing new either. When I first got out into the workforce, minimum wage was $3.25 per hour. Yes, that was some years ago, but you still couldn't afford to support yourself. So what did we do if we were stuck at a minimum wage job? We worked more hours. We'd work 10 hour days plus the weekend if need be. If your job didn't offer weekend work, you found another job for the weekends. We would try to advance ourselves at the job we had. But what we didn't do is go on some welfare program because we had too much pride and welfare programs back then didn't pay anything.

Your rant has little to do with my point. Picked Walmart cause they are the largest employer. Like I said, paying so little increases government dependence.

The alternative being many more unemployed people who would be totally dependent on gov't for their survival. Is that really what you want?
The problem isn't low wages but rather the knowledge that if one works a part-time job at WalMart, the gov't will supplement that income, thus making the need for better skills or a second job unnecessary.

Well if you want small government the alternative is they get paid enough to not be on welfare.

just more propaganda and rhetoric? why not end our socialist, War on Drugs.

Mostly because we have private jails that like lots of business.

 

[Sallow]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

 

[Conservative65]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

 

[danielpalos]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

when they socialize personnel costs instead of compensating labor accordingly.

 

[Sallow]

socialism bailing out capitalism, like usual. the right Only complains about the use of the other Peoples' money when the least wealthy may receive some social benefit.

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

 

[SAYIT]

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

How does socialism bail out problems it caused?

How many of those receiving social welfare handouts fund the pot from which they draw? The answer is none. If they are eligible to draw, they don't fund and vice versa.

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

when they socialize personnel costs instead of compensating labor accordingly.

If someone that has $8/hour skills gets paid $8/hour, they are being compensated accordingly and should not receive any kind of taxpayer funded handouts.

 

[Sallow]

how is it socialism's fault that capitalists want to socialize their costs and their taxes as much as possible?

why not simplify unemployment compensation funding into a general tax on firms? it would be much simpler than our current regime.

and, socialism requires social morals for free; thus, we Only have social problems due to a lack of morals.

capitalism can only engender capital morals for a price.

If men were angels, no government would be necessary.

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

 

[Conservative65]

If capitalists wanted to socialize their costs, they wouldn't be capitalists.

Why not let you bleeding hearts support those unemployed instead of expecting others to do it?

Whose morals? You lefties constantly talk about not having morals shoved on you then shove yours when it suits you.

If people like you would show the compassion you claim you have by using your own money, government wouldn't be necessary in that realm. If you see a need, meet it. The government doesn't need to be involved if you truly care as much as you say you do.

Here's the fun thing.

You folks have no problem whatsoever in giving folks with more money than be counted in multiple life times, tax breaks, subsidies and contracts.

The Military/Oil/Industrial complex receives the highest amount of "Socialism" in the world.

The result is, over 55 thousand soldiers committed to foreign bases, a good amount of animosity from the world and huge deficits and debt at home.

And we do this for what? To assure that criminally insane and extremely greedy people continue to fleece tax payers while states which should be finding a way to sustain their own economies, instead, rely on the government for military contracts and oil subsidies?

And then? You folks complain about people displaced by this madness and call them "lazy".

It's amazing.

How can someone that produces a product you wouldn't have without them and pays taxes on the profits it makes be socialist?

It's not actually.

When the government is working for an elite group of corporations and funneling tax payer money to them?

That's "corporatism" as Mussolini used to call it.

And it's known as "fascism" by everyone else.

WOW. So when the gov't buys TP for its office bathrooms that is fascism?

I tell ya, there is nothing on planet earth dimmer than a loony leftist.
Nothing.

Well no.

The government buying and supporting this crap:






To the tune of over 600 billion dollars a year?

IS..

So funding something that the Constitution specifically says is a delegated power of Congress to fund is wrong yet funding something for which the Constitution says nothing is perfectly OK with you?