apple0154
MEOW
He nails the Repubs. Excellent read!
Admit it Dems: Ryan scares the shit out of you
- Thread starter Cancel 2016.2
- Start date
He nails the Repubs. Excellent read!
apple0154
MEOW
You guys continue to make my point.
Given this ..
I'd say there is plenty of money to spend on our children .. our BORN children.
It's a matter of your priorities .. not money.
Exactly! And that's why regardless of how convoluted ObamaCare may appear to be it has set a precedent the American people are entitled to medical care. That, alone, is a crowning achievement for Obama.
apple0154
MEOW
I definitely don't want to collapse capitalism so I guess I'm not a Socialist. I want capitalism to thrive so the people making all that money can be taxed to pay for things like medical care and food and shelter for the needy. If people want less government regulation and involvement, fine. The other side of the coin is if a company produces a product that causes illness/injury or performs shoddy workmanship there is no "limited liability" the owner can fall back on. If a portion of the profits went to pay his mortgage, take his house. Treat any asset the same way they currently do with assets procured with drug money. If a person selling drugs is faulted with selling a product injurious to ones health then the same should apply to selling any product injurious to ones health. Misrepresenting a product or selling a defective product is the same as stealing from the customer and, depending on the amount involved, should be treated the same as grand theft.
It's called taking responsibility. If one doesn't want government involvement and they want people to run free to scam anyone they can, fine. When caught they should be treated the same as any other common criminal. Sell a faulty product? Provide faulty labor?.....Treat it as theft which is exactly what is is and jail the SOB. Keep the laws consistent and let capitalism run free. Once a few capitalists are doing "3 - 5" I'm sure the capitalists will regulate themselves.
apple0154
MEOW
That's right. They do believe there is plenty of money because there is plenty of money. A country's wealth is tied directly to the wealth of its citizens. The exception are countries run by families such as certain Muslim countries.
Look around at the country. Can you not see the wealth? The extravagance? Supporting tax breaks for the wealthy while saying there isn't money for the poor. That is what's happening. For years, for decades, for generations we were told it was impossible to house/shelter all the poor. We simply couldn't build enough homes. Then along came the housing boom and houses were springing up like mushrooms. Thousands of homes. Hundreds of thousands of homes. There were so many homes people were buying two and three extra homes. Then the prices fell and people just walked away. Stopped paying the mortgage and the houses were left to rot. One community in Nevada consisted of over 150,000 homes. All of them left to rot. Lack of maintenance. Rodent infestation. Now a mini housing boom has started and people want newly build homes. They don't want the new homes that were build and left to deteriorate.
How was it possible to build over 150,000 homes, leave them to rot, then build more new homes if there's no money? Those 150,000 homes were built before they were sold so the money had to be there first. In fact, they were never sold and paid for. They were built and left to rot. How many other communities, albeit smaller, suffered the same fate? How could those homes have been built if there was no money? And even after they're left to rot where is the money to build more new homes?
What is the total number of abandoned homes in the US? Hundreds and hundreds of thousands but no money to build retirement places for the poor and elderly consisting of small, one bedorom apartments? No money to take an abandoned factory constructed of poured, reinforced concrete and turn it into small apartments? Where is the stimulus money? Hire contractors to finish the inside of those abandoned factories, many in the core of cities, resulting in rejuvenating the city while supplying inexpensive housing. The low rents going towards repaying the mortgage. Both the citizens and the government gain by the citizens having a nice place to live and the government acquiring rental property while the tenants pay the mortgage. A win-win situation. A practical solution. And IF the governemnt has to untimately cut pensions in the future there will be homes for the people to live in.
After 25 or 30 years the mortgages would be paid on those places, places available in most major cities across the country. Instead of the government sending retirees a $2000/mth pension check of which $1000 would go for rent they could offer the apartments at low rent and cut the pensions. Everybody wins.
The government can and should get involved. They have the resources to provide solutions, to plan for the long term. Tax payers who fight to keep government out of things are shooting themselves in the foot. Or maybe they just like seeing others suffer? What do you think is the reason some people are opposed to government involvement?
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
With all due respect, you don't even know the difference between socialism, communism, or marxism .. yet you pretend to be an authority on what socialists want and do. Beyond the meme, you know nothing of what you're talking about.
"Democratic Socialists believe that both the economy and society should be run democratically—to meet public needs, not to make profits for a few. To achieve a more just society, many structures of our government and economy must be radically transformed through greater economic and social democracy so that ordinary Americans can participate in the many decisions that affect our lives."
http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html
The chart I posted clearly demonstartes that this country has more than enough money to provide for our children .. yet you come back with the same nonsensical noise that refuses to see what is right in front of your face.
This from yet another pro-unborn-lifer who really doesn't give a damn about life.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
I definitely don't want to collapse capitalism so I guess I'm not a Socialist. I want capitalism to thrive so the people making all that money can be taxed to pay for things like medical care and food and shelter for the needy. If people want less government regulation and involvement, fine. The other side of the coin is if a company produces a product that causes illness/injury or performs shoddy workmanship there is no "limited liability" the owner can fall back on. If a portion of the profits went to pay his mortgage, take his house. Treat any asset the same way they currently do with assets procured with drug money. If a person selling drugs is faulted with selling a product injurious to ones health then the same should apply to selling any product injurious to ones health. Misrepresenting a product or selling a defective product is the same as stealing from the customer and, depending on the amount involved, should be treated the same as grand theft.
It's called taking responsibility. If one doesn't want government involvement and they want people to run free to scam anyone they can, fine. When caught they should be treated the same as any other common criminal. Sell a faulty product? Provide faulty labor?.....Treat it as theft which is exactly what is is and jail the SOB. Keep the laws consistent and let capitalism run free. Once a few capitalists are doing "3 - 5" I'm sure the capitalists will regulate themselves.
Here's what you are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Useful_idiot
Now you are too profoundly stupid to ever be a socialist, but the socialists realize they need people like you to promote their propaganda. All this stuff you are yammering about, is designed to hamper or destroy capitalism. Once that happens, the socialists can implement their socialist system, and then there will be no use for you. While people like you ultimately end up at the bottom of a mass grave, you are a very vital and important part of the process. You are too ignorant of illiterate of history to realize, this has been done before, numerous times, and with great success. Russia, Italy, Germany, and China, all used this method to introduce socialism to the people. The end is always the same as well, those who were the biggest cheerleaders for socialism, have a spot reserved at the bottom of a mass grave. The story doesn't end as you think it will, because the fairy tale becomes a living nightmare. Once capitalism is dead, and the state has confiscated the wealth of those who know how to make capitalist systems work, the economic conditions begin to falter. The state, unequipped to deal with the massive problem of too many people with no jobs or hope, and unable to adequately provide for them, turns to genocide as a solution. Again, this is not fear-mongering, it is a matter of documented historical record. This has all been done before, and it never has worked out as the 'useful idiots' envisioned.
Our system already deals with consumer fraud, theft, dishonest business practices, and things of this nature. Every year, white collar criminals are sent off to prison in shackles, for screwing people over. State control will not mean you won't be screwed, it simply changes who gets to do the screwing. With a free market capitalist system, you have recourse, someone you can go after and take before a court, and ultimately win judgement against. When this system is controlled by the state, your "recourse" becomes occupying your reserved space at the bottom of a mass grave, with a bullet in your head. You don't see this now, you are still enamored with a fairy tale. You still believe there is some mystical way for people to not really have to work, but still be provided for and cared for, by a central government. However, governments don't generate profits, they don't produce and sell a product to consumers, or provide services for remuneration. They simply cost money, and with no capitalists to generate tax bases or workers to pay taxes, there is no source of revenue and the entire economic system collapses. In the past, such systems have never been sustained more than a few decades.
But the real problem is not just that the model doesn't work, it's what you must do in order to implement the model in the first place. It's equivalent to Micheal Phelps having his arms amputated in hopes of it making him a faster swimmer. Once it is done, it is too late to change your mind. It won't matter how regretful you are or how much you wish you could take it all back, it's too late. The only way to kill the monster you've created is through revolt and uprising, but this could take decades, and result in millions of people dying, it won't be a pleasant prospect. Throughout history, others have been fortunate enough to have the US intervene militarily or diplomatically on their behalf, and liberate them from tyranny, but the US won't be around this time.
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
With all due respect, I do indeed know the difference. Your propaganda links are not impressing me.
Children in this country have the opportunity to become as successful as they dare to dream. There is no limit to what any individual can accomplish here. This is because we are FREE people, we aren't controlled by a central government. What you seek to do for your children, is destroy this system which provides opportunity, for the sake of implementing a system that has repeatedly failed to deliver, and ultimately results in great misery and death. You are essentially trading freedom and opportunity for economic security, and will ultimately have neither.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
NO, HELL NO .. you don't have a clue what of the differences are .. and you quite obviously don't have a clue about what socialists want and do .. and most certainly you don't have the slightest idea of what I want for my children.
Your entire presentation on this board is totally based on meme and right-wing talking points. It's as if you don't have the capacity to think for yourself.
I show you a chart that demonstrates the ungodly amount of money we spend on defense in comparison with the rest of the world .. and instead of addressing what is right in front of your face, you start reaching for meme about socialism and what I want for my children. Hardly an intellectual approach to debate.
This non-intellectual thought pattern is quite typical of right-wingers .. especially from the south. Faced with facts that doesn't fir in your programmed box, you quickly change the subject and run for the hills.
Typical
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
YES, HELL YES, I do know the distinct differences between socialism, Marxism and Communism. If you believe my problem is not knowing how to think for myself, perhaps your problem is you do too much thinking? Your chart is propaganda. That is what socialists put out to support their cause, to brainwash more 'useful idiots' and has nothing to do with the truth. The United States spends more on the military than any other country because they have the largest and most powerful military of any country. We spend more on military than most everything else, because that is the primary function and reason for our government and it's main responsibility to the people. Because of our state-of-the-art military, we are able to defend liberty. That means, we are able to protect the nature of what makes us vastly different from socialists, Marxists and Communists. Not only are we able to protect liberty here, we are also able to liberate others who have become the victims of socialism, Marxism and Communism. Needless to say, this is a problem for socialists, Marxists and Communists.
As for what you want for your children, let me rephrase that. You want great and wonderful things for your children, like any loving parent. You've just hung your hat on the wrong nail. Socialist Utopia doesn't exist, it is a figment of imagination that can't be realized. In America, your children have the opportunity to be whatever they want. There is no better illustration and example of this than President Barack H. Obama. Under a socialist regime, we would have never even heard of Barack Obama, he would have been one of the many millions of proles enslaved to their government masters. Oh, I know, you aren't an Obama supporter, and I don't blame you! Obama represents the opportunity free people have, which isn't available to people under socialist rule. The irony is, he is a Marxist, and if he gets what he wants, no one will ever again be able to accomplish what he has. Not your children, not my children, and probably not even his own children.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
:0) You think Obama is a socialist, marxist, communist. That conclusively determines that you have no idea, no clue what either of them are.
Seriously, I'm not saying this to win an argument .. you simply don't have the slightest inkling about what you're talking about .. and again I ask you the one question that makes your argument intellectually silly and kinda' dumb.
Are you of the opinion that Wall Street would shower a socialist, marxist, communist with money?
If you answer anything else but no .. it means that not only do you not know what socialism is, it means that you don't even know what capitalism is. Socialist, marxist .. you call him both because you don't know what either one is. :0)
But even more WTF astounding than anything else you've said is this ..
WOW
That's probably the dumbest thing ever said on a message board. Produce your own numbers that demonstrate the comparisons to be false .. and keep in mind that the "idiot" is someone who says really dumb things they cannot back up.
Demonstrate that the producers of the data and chart are socialists. Did you pay any attention to who produced it?
How about this one for 2008 ..
Don't like that either, eh?
I could go on with facts and truth .. but all you'll have is self-induced blindness and meme.
You do understand critical thinking and argument, don't you?
Let's see your evidence that disputes what I've said.
j-mac
Verified User
Pure democracies do not work....Ask California.
blackascoal
The Force is With Me
Dixie - In Memoriam
New member
But I didn't say Obama was all three, I said he was a Marxist. To be specific, a NEO-Marxist.
Well, Wall Street is a place where financial people transact business regarding finance, and there isn't a sign up that says "Socialist Stay Out!" The Socialists of the world have plenty of money, after all, they have stolen the wealth of so many over the years. The fact that they fund socialist endeavors through Wall Street is not proof they aren't socialists, or that who they seek to help, aren't Neo-Marxists. What is "intellectually kinda dumb" is the idea that 'Wall Street' only represents the interests of capitalism and free markets.
It can also mean that you have a false perception of Wall Street.
But even more WTF astounding than anything else you've said is this ..
There is nothing dumb or astounding about my statement, it is true. I don't have to produce anything to refute propaganda. You obviously don't comprehend the nature or purpose of propaganda or how it works. The numbers and comparisons are not what is false, it's the way they are manipulated and exploited to prove one side of a point that is irrelevant to all the facts. I can manipulate all kinds of perfectly accurate information, to make all kinds of lame arguments. No American citizen has died of intentional malnutrition (unrelated to mental illness) since 1939. I can use that statistic to make an argument that we don't need social programs to help the hungry. THAT would be propagandizing... using a statistic or fact, without regard for other conditions, statistics or facts, in order to advance a particular point or further an agenda.
Demonstrate that the producers of the data and chart are socialists. Did you pay any attention to who produced it?
How about this one for 2008 ..
Don't like that either, eh?
Sorry, I don't support propaganda mills.
Yes, you can go on being a propagandist and promoting socialism, you are free to do that in America. I'm also free to ignore you.
j-mac
Verified User
In this part of the quote from you that I responded to was this from your cite...
In this, it is my understanding that you are talking about doing away with representative nature of our system of government. This has long been the path that Californians have chosen through their constant referendum system for decades. Oh, they still have a semblance of representative governance for the day to day minutia of operation, but as a whole, they vote on everything from whether or not a new business opens on the boardwalk of Long Beach, to gay marriage. This has dramatically slowed reaction, and tied the hands of those elected in government in CA to the point where their problems can't even be handled in the timely manner that they require. It's like herding cats.
Another part of the quote you provided use terms like "justice" and "radical transformation" both code for redistribution from those that have, to those that have not. That which you describe as "just" is just another way of taking that which you didn't earn, and claiming it as your own.
this will not work in our society, it isn't what we are founded on.
j-mac
Verified User
Absolutely not. Repeal is inevitable. The unpopularity of Obama's top down dictate, will not stand.
j-mac
Verified User
So let's see, I make a post to another poster, and you stick your fat ass in to name call and deride? Get lost loser.
Apparently you are unfamiliar with how government in New England (you know, we founded the country) has been run for just shy of 400 years now. Town Meetings, the voters vote on issues. Contrary to your idiotic proclamation, it works, works well, and has been working well for nigh unto 400 years.
In the future please restrain from commenting upon subjects you are embarrassingly ignorant of.
Oh, and by the way, moron, that is EXACTLY what we are founded on. STFU you ignorant bastard.
Sorry, it you you who is the interloper here, moron.
j-mac
Verified User
"New England" is a broad term...What states in particular are you speaking of and we can look at them.