A great example of why socialism is better than "charity"

[sealybobo]

That’s your greedy and or ignorant way of looking at it.

Our way worked better. New deal to Bill Clinton. You get from bush to now. How are the masses doing?

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

Because it works. All the people like you who made it in America made it because there was a progressive tax. Now you want to change the way the game is played after you made it in a more fair system? Typical.

I didn't make it because there was a progressive tax. There you go thinking you have a clue about what it takes to get ahead. Supporting a progressive tax system proves you think others owe you something. The poor think someone owes them something. That's why they support it because they get something they didn't earn and someone of which they're jealous is supposed to pay for it.

Who knows if you made it because of a progressive tax system or not. Maybe it was your parents who benefitted from a progressive tax system. Bottom line is the middle class benefitted from it. Maybe like I'm doing great in a every man for himself society, maybe you would do better too. Who knows. But most would not. And chances like me you made it in a progressive taxed society and you probably don't have a clue how many times it benefitted you. For example did you go to college when it was cheap? I did. A progressive tax made college affordable.

Usually it doesn't take very long to figure out when/where/how a Republican is full of shit. I don't know you so I would be guessing. And I don't want to get to know you enough to be able to expose you.

Bottom line, your way of thinking is dumb and doesn't work as well as our way. Our way produced a middle class the world has never seen before. Unless you are rich then you are just greedy and a liar.

 

[sealybobo]

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Earn the wage increase and stop begging for someone else to take care of your lazy ass.

stop complaining the Poor don't Pay Their Share!

The poor don't pay any share. Are you saying that's fair? In fact, there are people considered middle class that don't pay any share.

Yes it's fair. Try living on $22K a year. Now tell me that millionaires shouldn't pay a little more to help poor people.

Supporters of the progressive system claim that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes and that this is the fairest system because it lessens thetax burden of the poor. ... A flat tax would ignore the differences between rich and poor taxpayers. Some argue that flat taxes are unfair for this reason.

Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax?

 

[sealybobo]

That’s your greedy and or ignorant way of looking at it.

Our way worked better. New deal to Bill Clinton. You get from bush to now. How are the masses doing?

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

Because it works. All the people like you who made it in America made it because there was a progressive tax. Now you want to change the way the game is played after you made it in a more fair system? Typical.

I didn't make it because there was a progressive tax. There you go thinking you have a clue about what it takes to get ahead. Supporting a progressive tax system proves you think others owe you something. The poor think someone owes them something. That's why they support it because they get something they didn't earn and someone of which they're jealous is supposed to pay for it.

How much do you even make a year? I make about $90K and I don't mind if I pay a little more so the poor don't have to pay. We should have a progressive tax when Democrats are in power and go back to a flat tax whenever Republicans control the white house. That way people know voting matters. If they vote for Republicans then they are voting for a flat tax. If poor people don't show up then they too are voting for a flat tax. But if they show up and vote for a progressive tax break, don't fucking cry. I won't cry either way. I'll live....comfortably either way.

Progressive taxation versus flat taxation inspires ongoing debate, and both have proponents and critics. In the United States, the historical favorite is the progressive tax. Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers. No one pays more or less than anyone else under a flat tax system. Both of these systems may be considered "fair" in the sense that they are consistent and apply a rational approach to taxation. They differ, however, in their treatment of wealth, and each system may be called "unfair" according to who benefits or is treated differently.

 

[Soupnazi630]

No it was always accurate and still is.

in right wing fantasy, You are Always right.

It is simple English and neither right nor left.

It proves you wrong.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Already did and you lost the argument.

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

 

[Conservative65]

The greedy way is thinking what someone else earned belongs to you.

I don't give a shit how you're doing. The only people I'm concerned with is me and my family. If you and yours go without, you should try harder and do better. You're not my concern nor should you be.

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

Because it works. All the people like you who made it in America made it because there was a progressive tax. Now you want to change the way the game is played after you made it in a more fair system? Typical.

I didn't make it because there was a progressive tax. There you go thinking you have a clue about what it takes to get ahead. Supporting a progressive tax system proves you think others owe you something. The poor think someone owes them something. That's why they support it because they get something they didn't earn and someone of which they're jealous is supposed to pay for it.

How much do you even make a year? I make about $90K and I don't mind if I pay a little more so the poor don't have to pay. We should have a progressive tax when Democrats are in power and go back to a flat tax whenever Republicans control the white house. That way people know voting matters. If they vote for Republicans then they are voting for a flat tax. If poor people don't show up then they too are voting for a flat tax. But if they show up and vote for a progressive tax break, don't fucking cry. I won't cry either way. I'll live....comfortably either way.

Progressive taxation versus flat taxation inspires ongoing debate, and both have proponents and critics. In the United States, the historical favorite is the progressive tax. Progressive tax systems have tiered tax rates that charge higher income individuals higher percentages of their income and offer the lowest rates to those with the lowest incomes. Flat tax plans generally assign one tax rate to all taxpayers. No one pays more or less than anyone else under a flat tax system. Both of these systems may be considered "fair" in the sense that they are consistent and apply a rational approach to taxation. They differ, however, in their treatment of wealth, and each system may be called "unfair" according to who benefits or is treated differently.

If you think a tax system can be modified based on which party is in power, you don't show the intelligence to make $90/year.

Why do you need the government telling you to help the poor? Are you unable to do that to the same level you claim you'd have no problem with on your own? If you cared, you wouldn't have to be told, you'd simply do it on your own. That way the money is going where you want and the use wouldn't be determined by a politician trying to get votes by pandering to certain groups. If someone needed help feeding their children, why do you support the government as a go between instead of going to the store and buying it yourself?

 

[Conservative65]

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Earn the wage increase and stop begging for someone else to take care of your lazy ass.

stop complaining the Poor don't Pay Their Share!

The poor don't pay any share. Are you saying that's fair? In fact, there are people considered middle class that don't pay any share.

Yes it's fair. Try living on $22K a year. Now tell me that millionaires shouldn't pay a little more to help poor people.

Supporters of the progressive system claim that higher salaries enable affluent people to pay higher taxes and that this is the fairest system because it lessens thetax burden of the poor. ... A flat tax would ignore the differences between rich and poor taxpayers. Some argue that flat taxes are unfair for this reason.

Is a progressive tax more fair than a flat tax?

Not when they're living in the same society as those paying taxes. Millionaires don't owe poor people anything because they're poor. If poor people spent 1/4 the time trying to do better as they do begging someone for help, they wouldn't need to beg for help.

You do realize that many of the programs used by the poor aren't funded by the ones using them? For some reason you think someone that didn't earn what they're being handed is OK while someone that wants to keep more of what he/she earned is greedy.

 

[danielpalos]

Public sector means of production accomplishing those social Goals, is socialism.

Still waiting on you to show where the term is.

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

 

[Conservative65]

Still waiting on you to show where the term is.

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

Not when those unwilling to do so are the cause of their situation. Just another example of pieces of shit being pieces of shit.

 

[danielpalos]

If that’s the way republicans make then people will do worse as the rich do better.

See? You are responsible for the growing gap between the rich and rest of us. A flat tax is fair but doesn’t work. Not as good as our unfair progressive tax.

Progressive tax is what voters should be voting for.

Unless they’re successful like us

Again, I don't care if you do worse. That's your problem, not mine.

Why wouldn't the poor support a progressive tax. It's easy to support something where you don't pay while believing those that are successful should pay more so your ass can get something for nothing.

raise the minimum wage Until the Poor, Pay their Fair Share!

Earn the wage increase and stop begging for someone else to take care of your lazy ass.

stop complaining the Poor don't Pay Their Share!

The poor don't pay any share. Are you saying that's fair? In fact, there are people considered middle class that don't pay any share.

raise the minimum wage until the Poor pay their fair share!

 

[danielpalos]

in right wing fantasy, You are Always right.

It is simple English and neither right nor left.

It proves you wrong.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Already did and you lost the argument.

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

 

[danielpalos]

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

Not when those unwilling to do so are the cause of their situation. Just another example of pieces of shit being pieces of shit.

Why should we care what morals the right wing alleges? We have a First Amendment.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is simple English and neither right nor left.

It proves you wrong.

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Already did and you lost the argument.

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

 

[Soupnazi630]

Still waiting on you to show where the term is.

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

 

[danielpalos]

i gainsay your contention; want to argue about it?

Already did and you lost the argument.

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

 

[danielpalos]

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

 

[Aba Incieni]

Why give a bed to someone who's just gonna commit suicide anyway.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Already did and you lost the argument.

in right wing fantasy, you Always win.

We have a Constitution that expresses the general welfare not the general warfare.

It has nothing to do with left or right you are simply wrong.

the Constitution does not support your argument.

yes, it does; want to argue about it?

No it does not and we already did argue it and you were proven wrong and got owned

we have a general welfare clause; i must be right even though i am on the left.

It proves you wrong because ti has nothing to do with socialism

 

[Soupnazi630]

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Our welfare clause is General and must solve for any exigency.

No it is not required for any exigency it is only for indirect promotion

 

[Conservative65]

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

Not when those unwilling to do so are the cause of their situation. Just another example of pieces of shit being pieces of shit.

Why should we care what morals the right wing alleges? We have a First Amendment.

Your 1st amendment right gives you the ability to say stupid things. You exercise it well.

 

[Conservative65]

To provide for the general welfare not the general warfare as Any form of public sector command economics and means of production.

You still haven't shown the term "socialism" in the wording.

where is the term "capitalism"?

Social-ism is what we are quibbling about.

Nothing is more certain than the indispensable necessity of government; and it is equally undeniable that whenever and however it is instituted, the people must cede to it some of their natural rights, in order to vest it with requisite powers. -The Federalist Number Two

Never claimed it was there. You did, however, claim that it about socialism.

It's not the taxpayer's responsibility to feed, house, clothe, provide healthcare coverage, etc. to someone unwilling to do it for him/herself or his/her kids.

Yes, it is. Blame Congress for manufacturing expensive excuses instead of fine capital results. We have a welfare clause General and a Commerce Clause.

No it is not

The welfare clause is not a socialist clause and no one is responsible for the living of another person .

Ever notice when the socialist types claim something is a right it involves someone else paying the bill?