Your view on Socialism/Communism/Liberalism

[Mikeoxenormous]

The bottom line, douche bag, is that they acquired their wealth entirely through voluntary exchanges. No one was coerced out of their money, as opposed to government where all the dollars are produced through coercion.

Wow, so the system lets the rich cheat the poor, and that's okay.

Of course not. We should root out all the ways the system cheats anyone and get rid of them. That strawman won't hunt.

Who has been in charge of the system for the past 7 3/4 years? Who had a Democrat Congress and Senate for the 1st 2 years of his presidency and FORCED upon US a bogus broken healthcare system, but instead could of fixed that system that lets the rich cheat the poor? Could it be that those who were in charge were cheating the poor so the rich liberals(like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who made billions) could then contribute to the coffers of the liberal politicians? Now make sure you insult me again as that is all you have to bring to the debate. You are just too stupid to know better.

???

It isn't what you said, DB but what Joe said

Wow, so the system lets the rich cheat the poor, and that's okay

I wanted to remind him who was in office during that time that the system could of been changed, but wasn't. Do you wonder why the liberals didn't take advantage during those 1st two years?

 

[dblack]

I wanted to remind him who was in office during that time that the system could of been changed, but wasn't. Do you wonder why the liberals didn't take advantage during those 1st two years?

Ahh, I see. No, I don't wonder about that much. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity to change things because they didn't want to. Corporatism suites them fine.

 

[JoeB131]

Who has been in charge of the system for the past 7 3/4 years? Who had a Democrat Congress and Senate for the 1st 2 years of his presidency and FORCED upon US a bogus broken healthcare system,

One only pictures Andy at Thanksgiving...

"Can you pass the potatoes?"

"Potatoes suck because Obama!!!!"

Guy, our health care system was already broken and bogus. 75 million Americans with either inadequate or no health insurance, the highest health care costs in the world, the lowest life expectency in the industrialized world and the highest infant mortality rate.

Oh, yeah, and 62% of bankruptcies due to medical crisis.

Could it be that those who were in charge were cheating the poor so the rich liberals(like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who made billions) could then contribute to the coffers of the liberal politicians? Now make sure you insult me again as that is all you have to bring to the debate. You are just too stupid to know better.

I think it's kind of funny that Andy now hates rich people because they don't want Trumpenfuhrer to blow up the word.

 

[JoeB131]

I wanted to remind him who was in office during that time that the system could of been changed, but wasn't. Do you wonder why the liberals didn't take advantage during those 1st two years?

They did. they fixed health care as much as the system allowed, they fixed the banks as much as the system allowed, and they set out the policies that helped us recover from the Great Recession. Oh, yeah, and they put an end to Bush's failed war in Iraq.

 

[JoeB131]

Ahh, I see. No, I don't wonder about that much. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity to change things because they didn't want to. Corporatism suites them fine.

Again, go back to the Libertarian Kiddy Table.

You don't undo 30 years of bad policy in two years. Just doesn't happen.

It took FDR and Truman 20 years to create the progressive state, which only endured because Ike and Nixon didn't **** with it too much. It took 30 years for Reagan and Gingrich to undo as much of it as they could.

 

[dblack]

Ahh, I see. No, I don't wonder about that much. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity to change things because they didn't want to. Corporatism suits them fine.

Again, go back to the Libertarian Kiddy Table.

Sure thing. Pull up a chair!

You don't undo 30 years of bad policy in two years. Just doesn't happen.

It took FDR and Truman 20 years to create the progressive state, which only endured because Ike and Nixon didn't **** with it too much. It took 30 years for Reagan and Gingrich to undo as much of it as they could.

None of these politicians have any genuine interest in diminishing state power. Corporatism gives them more power and they will never do anything to undermine it.

 

[dblack]

I wanted to remind him who was in office during that time that the system could of been changed, but wasn't. Do you wonder why the liberals didn't take advantage during those 1st two years?

They did. they fixed health care as much as the system allowed, they fixed the banks as much as the system allowed, and they set out the policies that helped us recover from the Great Recession. Oh, yeah, and they put an end to Bush's failed war in Iraq.

"As much as the system allowed". ie as much as their sponsors would permit.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Who has been in charge of the system for the past 7 3/4 years? Who had a Democrat Congress and Senate for the 1st 2 years of his presidency and FORCED upon US a bogus broken healthcare system,

One only pictures Andy at Thanksgiving...

"Can you pass the potatoes?"

"Potatoes suck because Obama!!!!"

Guy, our health care system was already broken and bogus. 75 million Americans with either inadequate or no health insurance, the highest health care costs in the world, the lowest life expectency in the industrialized world and the highest infant mortality rate.

Oh, yeah, and 62% of bankruptcies due to medical crisis.

Could it be that those who were in charge were cheating the poor so the rich liberals(like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet who made billions) could then contribute to the coffers of the liberal politicians? Now make sure you insult me again as that is all you have to bring to the debate. You are just too stupid to know better.

I think it's kind of funny that Andy now hates rich people because they don't want Trumpenfuhrer to blow up the word.

Funny how you the libidiot didn't realize that everyone, even Canadians were crossing our borders to get our GREAT hospitalization. Not healthcare you moron. Healthcare was a weapon used against you liberals who constantly abuse the working class, because most of you don't ******* work. So a company provides FREE healthcare to incentivize the best of the best to come work for them. Of course, the fuckwad liberals like you, could use Medicaid, but after 7 3/4 years of Obama, the funding for that is shriveling up like your pintsized wiener in a pool. So back on the question, why when Obama had Nancy and Harry owning the government , they didn't punish the Uber Wealthy who had 43% of the wealth? Because those very people ARE in that 1%, dumbass.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

I wanted to remind him who was in office during that time that the system could of been changed, but wasn't. Do you wonder why the liberals didn't take advantage during those 1st two years?

They did. they fixed health care as much as the system allowed, they fixed the banks as much as the system allowed, and they set out the policies that helped us recover from the Great Recession. Oh, yeah, and they put an end to Bush's failed war in Iraq.

No worries, if the US ends up like Venezuela, and all Socialist states eventually do, then all those liberal policies are out the door. And do you know what, there wont be a government around to protect your sorry liberal ass. When that happens, anyone with a Hillary bumper sticker, could be mistaken as an ISIS sympathizer.

 

[regent]

Of the many types of socialism, how many were supposed to lead to communism?

 

[JoeB131]

None of these politicians have any genuine interest in diminishing state power. Corporatism gives them more power and they will never do anything to undermine it.

State power isn't the problem. Again, the child like minds of LIbertarians is amusing to behold.

No worries, if the US ends up like Venezuela, and all Socialist states eventually do, then all those liberal policies are out the door. And do you know what, there wont be a government around to protect your sorry liberal ass. When that happens, anyone with a Hillary bumper sticker, could be mistaken as an ISIS sympathizer.

Yeah, uh, guy, if you gun nuts ever got our of your basements, we'd demand more government to control you.

Funny how you the libidiot didn't realize that everyone, even Canadians were crossing our borders to get our GREAT hospitalization.

Again, guy, a rich foreigner getting health care most Americans can't access because their insurance won't cover it is not a kudo to our system. It just kind of shows how fucked up it is.

Oh, yeah, and Canadian Health Tourism is a myth.

Phantoms In The Snow: Canadians’ Use Of Health Care Services In The United States

Not healthcare you moron. Healthcare was a weapon used against you liberals who constantly abuse the working class, because most of you don't ******* work. So a company provides FREE healthcare to incentivize the best of the best to come work for them

Uh, guy, that's not really how it works. You've obviously never had to fight with an insurance company to get them to actually cover something.

Of course, the fuckwad liberals like you, could use Medicaid, but after 7 3/4 years of Obama, the funding for that is shriveling up like your pintsized wiener in a pool.

Wow, a gun nut using a dick joke... we already know you guys are compensating for your shortcomings.

Medicaid is fine, BTW, in states that got with the program. It's only the red states pissing on their poor.

So back on the question, why when Obama had Nancy and Harry owning the government , they didn't punish the Uber Wealthy who had 43% of the wealth? Because those very people ARE in that 1%, dumbass.

Oh, sorry, that was a question, I thought you were just engaging in your insane ranting.

Obama let the tax cuts for the Uber-wealthy expire... not that making them pay their fair share is "punishing" them.

 

[JoeB131]

"As much as the system allowed". ie as much as their sponsors would permit.

Or as much as the electorate would tolerate.

We'd be just fine if we went to Single Payer. The voters arent' there yet.

 

[dblack]

None of these politicians have any genuine interest in diminishing state power. Corporatism gives them more power and they will never do anything to undermine it.

State power isn't the problem. Again, the child like minds of LIbertarians is amusing to behold.

I understand your point of view. You've never met an expansion of state power you didn't like. I think you're wrong.

 

[dblack]

We'd be just fine if we went to Single Payer. The voters arent' there yet.

We'd also be fine if government weren't allowed to stick its nose in health care. The Court isn't there yet.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Ahh, I see. No, I don't wonder about that much. They didn't take advantage of the opportunity to change things because they didn't want to. Corporatism suites them fine.

Again, go back to the Libertarian Kiddy Table.

You don't undo 30 years of bad policy in two years. Just doesn't happen.

It took FDR and Truman 20 years to create the progressive state, which only endured because Ike and Nixon didn't **** with it too much. It took 30 years for Reagan and Gingrich to undo as much of it as they could.

 

[JoeB131]

I understand your point of view. You've never met an expansion of state power you didn't like. I think you're wrong.

There's never been an expansion of state power that most people didn't wholeheartedly support.

I personally think seat belt laws are kind of dumb. But most people think they aren't.

[

Dude, you need to stop showing us pictures from your home album.

Here's the thing. I'd be all for changing welfare to workfare. But the reality is, there are very few able bodied Americans "on the dole". Most "welfare" goes to the elderly and children.

The real problem is, thanks to the Conservative Bullshit you love so much, people who HAVE jobs end up going on "Welfare" because companies that pay their Executives 8 figure like to cheat the guys who do that actual work.

so when you have a guy slaving away 35 hours a week for Walmart and he has to go on welfare and food stamps to make ends meet, and you are all so fine with this.

Yup, here you go...

Report: Walmart Workers Cost Taxpayers $6.2 Billion In Public Assistance

Walmart’s low-wage workers cost U.S. taxpayers an estimated $6.2 billion in public assistance including food stamps, Medicaid and subsidized housing, according to a report published to coincide with Tax Day, April 15.

Americans for Tax Fairness, a coalition of 400 national and state-level progressive groups, made this estimate using data from a 2013 study by Democratic Staff of the U.S. Committee onEducation and the Workforce.

“The study estimated the cost to Wisconsin’s taxpayers of Walmart’s low wages and benefits, which often force workers to rely on various public assistance programs,” reads the report,available in full here.

“It found that a single Walmart Supercenter cost taxpayers between $904,542 and $1.75 million per year, or between $3,015 and $5,815 on average for each of 300 workers.”

 

[dblack]

I understand your point of view. You've never met an expansion of state power you didn't like. I think you're wrong.

There's never been an expansion of state power that most people didn't wholeheartedly support.

Of course not. In a democracy, most government policies will have the support of the majority, even those that royally skull-**** the minority. That's what so insidious and dangerous about unlimited democracy. That's why we need a Constitution that strictly limits state power.

 

[JoeB131]

Of course not. In a democracy, most government policies will have the support of the majority, even those that royally skull-**** the minority. That's what so insidious and dangerous about unlimited democracy. That's why we need a Constitution that strictly limits state power.

That happens to be your opinion. I don't share it. what we need is a government that uses its power to look out for the people and not the wealthy.

 

[Windship]

Its not all capitalism or socialism/communism...whatever. Its is a balance. Just like everything in nature and on this natural planet.
We were the healthiest when w did have a balance. Too mush of ANY one this is bad.

 

[Windship]

Of course not. In a democracy, most government policies will have the support of the majority, even those that royally skull-**** the minority. That's what so insidious and dangerous about unlimited democracy. That's why we need a Constitution that strictly limits state power.[/QUOTE]

Why? So our gov and the super rich have ANOTHER document they can trash for money?