Bill de Blasio Reveals That He Wants To Steal From You Using Socialism

[hadit]

lol. Only the Right Wing, never gets it.

We are discussing the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

Only the right wing has a capital problem with the rock bottom cost of a form of Minimum wage.

Wrong.
Anyone with average intelligence opposes minimum wage

only the right wing is that dumb.

Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. There is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in our First World economy.

Social services cost enormous amount beyond your false claim and only encourages dependency

Capitalism has a natural rate of unemployed merely for the bottom line; it only encourages cronyism.

It has no such natural rate of unemployment which is simply a made up delusional claim.

But it has to, he heard it somewhere.

 

[danielpalos]

the right wing prefers to appeal to ignorance of the laws of demand and supply but want to be taken seriously regarding other illegals.

 

[hadit]

Sounds like you really do believe you can fill a swimming pool by pumping water from the deep end to the shallow end.

lol. Only the Right Wing, never gets it.

We are discussing the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

Only the right wing has a capital problem with the rock bottom cost of a form of Minimum wage.

Wrong.
Anyone with average intelligence opposes minimum wage

only the right wing is that dumb.

Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. There is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in our First World economy.

That's not what's going on.

Yes, it is. A first world economy Costs.

Employers pay what the job is worth. They are not welfare distribution centers.

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Only the Right Wing, never gets it.

We are discussing the rock bottom cost of a form of minimum wage.

Only the right wing has a capital problem with the rock bottom cost of a form of Minimum wage.

Wrong.
Anyone with average intelligence opposes minimum wage

only the right wing is that dumb.

Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. There is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in our First World economy.

That's not what's going on.

Yes, it is. A first world economy Costs.

Employers pay what the job is worth. They are not welfare distribution centers.

Government fixes the Standard of Worth in our Republic. And, yes, they are market friendly means of income generation and redistribution.

 

[Pilot1]

just right wing special pleading. Venezuela is a federal republic. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

FDR was a criminal and extended the depression. It took a war to get us out.

You do know that Venezuela has state owned companies, especially of their main industry which is energy (oil) production. It is a Far Left socialist/communist, Totalitarian State. It is where all Left Wing run governments become.

 

[Votto]

The blinders are off:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slammed the current economic model in New York City and the world-at-large during a recent speech; bizarrely claiming there’s “plenty of money,” it’s just not properly distributed. The Big Apple Democrat was speaking at his State of the City address when he made the stunning admission; vowing to redistribute the wealth throughout the nation’s largest metropolis.

"There’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city," Mayor de Blasio said. "It’s just in the wrong hands!"
​

Yup........like most socialists....they want your money. They feel they have the right to just take it whenever they can manufacture a reason....or manufacture a crisis that warrants taking more.​

What does an angry white male racist know anyway?

 

[danielpalos]

just right wing special pleading. Venezuela is a federal republic. Thank Goodness FDR was a left winger.

FDR was a criminal and extended the depression. It took a war to get us out.

You do know that Venezuela has state owned companies, especially of their main industry which is energy (oil) production. It is a Far Left socialist/communist, Totalitarian State. It is where all Left Wing run governments become.

our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are "public sector means of production" for socialism not capitalism.

 

[Soupnazi630]

It is not a general power.

it must be, it says so, Expressly.

It does not and it is not

Providing for the general welfare must be a general power.

Individual welfare is not general welfare.

The general welfare must be comprehensive and cover individuals.

Nope cause that only increases dependency laziness and failure.

 

[Soupnazi630]

I have no bigotry and capitalism has no natural rate of unemployment

you appeal to ignorance of that economic concept; why is that?

It is not an economic concept it is a claim you and others pulled out of thin air

the right wing simply makes up their rejection through simple bigotry.

No you simply make up false claims with no basis in fact and they are rejected with no need for evidence.


Your constant repetition of bigotry is proof you are wrong as you can only label and not present intelligent arguments

i already looked up the concept of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is an economic concept anyone who is discussing economics should understand.

It is not an economic concept it is an obscure idea you made up or heard and it is not shared but intelligent people especially not economists.

You have only appeal to authority where there is no authority or expertise.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The blinders are off:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slammed the current economic model in New York City and the world-at-large during a recent speech; bizarrely claiming there’s “plenty of money,” it’s just not properly distributed. The Big Apple Democrat was speaking at his State of the City address when he made the stunning admission; vowing to redistribute the wealth throughout the nation’s largest metropolis.

"There’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city," Mayor de Blasio said. "It’s just in the wrong hands!"
​

Yup........like most socialists....they want your money. They feel they have the right to just take it whenever they can manufacture a reason....or manufacture a crisis that warrants taking more.​

This is every Democrat going back to FDR

FDR....hated successful businessmen because he was a failure at that endeavor.

He was a lawyer and was successful in his trade..including the wealth and position of his family he never did without.

He was a politician with law degree who was successful at politics and nothing more

Politics is exactly the opposite of a trade or business

 

[Moonglow]

The blinders are off:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slammed the current economic model in New York City and the world-at-large during a recent speech; bizarrely claiming there’s “plenty of money,” it’s just not properly distributed. The Big Apple Democrat was speaking at his State of the City address when he made the stunning admission; vowing to redistribute the wealth throughout the nation’s largest metropolis.

"There’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city," Mayor de Blasio said. "It’s just in the wrong hands!"
​

Yup........like most socialists....they want your money. They feel they have the right to just take it whenever they can manufacture a reason....or manufacture a crisis that warrants taking more.​

This is every Democrat going back to FDR

FDR....hated successful businessmen because he was a failure at that endeavor.

He was a lawyer and was successful in his trade..including the wealth and position of his family he never did without.

He was a politician with law degree who was successful at politics and nothing more

Politics is exactly the opposite of a trade or business

When he wasn't a politician he did nothing..Sure buddy..

 

[Soupnazi630]

Amazing how they conflate voluntary transactions in which both sides benefit, with the coercion by the Bolsheviks.

Either they are as dumb as asphalt, or simply low-life lying Liberals.

There is no "both sides benefit" in capitalism. The only ones who benefit are the owners of the people. The transactions occur because people need food or gasoline or whatever. The owners of people do not need anything but suckers like republicans.

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

Amazing how they conflate voluntary transactions in which both sides benefit, with the coercion by the Bolsheviks.

Either they are as dumb as asphalt, or simply low-life lying Liberals.

There is no "both sides benefit" in capitalism. The only ones who benefit are the owners of the people. The transactions occur because people need food or gasoline or whatever. The owners of people do not need anything but suckers like republicans.

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

Explain how both sides benefit again; the vulture chart - Google Search

Is Capitalism Moral?

1.” Many people believe that free market capitalism is selfish, even immoral. They say it's about greed, about a hunger for money and power; that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. They're wrong. The free market is not only economically superior, it is morally superior to any other way of organizing economic behavior. Here's why.

2. The free market calls for voluntary actions between individuals. There's no coercion.


3. People accuse the free market of not being moral because they say it's a zero-sum game, like poker, where if you win, it means that I have to lose. But the free market is not a zero-sum game. It's a positive sum game. You do something good for me, such as give me that steak and I'll do something good for you -- give you twenty dollars. I'm better off because I valued the steak more than I valued the $20 and the grocer is better off because he valued the $20 more than he valued the steak. We both win.

4.Ironically, it's the government, not the free market, that creates zero-sum games in our economy. If you use the government to get a food stamp, a farm subsidy or a business bail out, you will benefit -- but at the expense of your fellow citizens.

Isn't it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces rather than not serve others and still have a claim?

5.But, a lot of people ask, what about giant corporations? Don't they have too much power over our lives? Not in a free market. Because in a free market We, the People, decide the fate of companies who want our business.

Free market capitalism will punish a corporation that does not satisfy customers or fails to use resources efficiently. Businesses, big and small, that wish to prosper are held accountable by the people who vote with their dollars. And, again, it's the government that can undo this.

6….. government bailout essentially meant to them: "You don't have to be accountable to customers and stock holders.' No matter how inferior your product is and no matter how inefficient you are, we'll keep you in business by taking your fellow man's money. When government interferes in this way, it takes the power away from the people and rewards companies that couldn't compete successfully in the marketplace. That may work out very well for politicians, big unions and corporate officers, but it seldom does for the tax payer. That's why a free market system can only work if there is limited government. Limited government means you and I decide which businesses survive.


7. That's the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned -- a limited government that has only a few specifically mentioned -- or enumerated -- powers that are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It's this brilliant, limited-government notion that produced the wealthiest nation in history. In a free market, the ambition and the voluntary effort of citizens, not the government, drives the economy. That is: people, to the best of their ability, shaping their own destiny.”

Evidently you missed out on US history where men died trying to not be coerced into unjust positions at work..

Evidently you missed the part where those acts of coercion failed and are nothing more than anecdotal

 

[Moonglow]

There is no "both sides benefit" in capitalism. The only ones who benefit are the owners of the people. The transactions occur because people need food or gasoline or whatever. The owners of people do not need anything but suckers like republicans.

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

There is no "both sides benefit" in capitalism. The only ones who benefit are the owners of the people. The transactions occur because people need food or gasoline or whatever. The owners of people do not need anything but suckers like republicans.

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

Explain how both sides benefit again; the vulture chart - Google Search

Is Capitalism Moral?

1.” Many people believe that free market capitalism is selfish, even immoral. They say it's about greed, about a hunger for money and power; that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. They're wrong. The free market is not only economically superior, it is morally superior to any other way of organizing economic behavior. Here's why.

2. The free market calls for voluntary actions between individuals. There's no coercion.


3. People accuse the free market of not being moral because they say it's a zero-sum game, like poker, where if you win, it means that I have to lose. But the free market is not a zero-sum game. It's a positive sum game. You do something good for me, such as give me that steak and I'll do something good for you -- give you twenty dollars. I'm better off because I valued the steak more than I valued the $20 and the grocer is better off because he valued the $20 more than he valued the steak. We both win.

4.Ironically, it's the government, not the free market, that creates zero-sum games in our economy. If you use the government to get a food stamp, a farm subsidy or a business bail out, you will benefit -- but at the expense of your fellow citizens.

Isn't it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces rather than not serve others and still have a claim?

5.But, a lot of people ask, what about giant corporations? Don't they have too much power over our lives? Not in a free market. Because in a free market We, the People, decide the fate of companies who want our business.

Free market capitalism will punish a corporation that does not satisfy customers or fails to use resources efficiently. Businesses, big and small, that wish to prosper are held accountable by the people who vote with their dollars. And, again, it's the government that can undo this.

6….. government bailout essentially meant to them: "You don't have to be accountable to customers and stock holders.' No matter how inferior your product is and no matter how inefficient you are, we'll keep you in business by taking your fellow man's money. When government interferes in this way, it takes the power away from the people and rewards companies that couldn't compete successfully in the marketplace. That may work out very well for politicians, big unions and corporate officers, but it seldom does for the tax payer. That's why a free market system can only work if there is limited government. Limited government means you and I decide which businesses survive.


7. That's the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned -- a limited government that has only a few specifically mentioned -- or enumerated -- powers that are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It's this brilliant, limited-government notion that produced the wealthiest nation in history. In a free market, the ambition and the voluntary effort of citizens, not the government, drives the economy. That is: people, to the best of their ability, shaping their own destiny.”

Evidently you missed out on US history where men died trying to not be coerced into unjust positions at work..

Evidently you missed the part where those acts of coercion failed and are nothing more than anecdotal

Yeah that's why you enjoy working only forty hours a week instead of ninety two..

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.
Anyone with average intelligence opposes minimum wage

only the right wing is that dumb.

Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. There is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in our First World economy.

That's not what's going on.

Yes, it is. A first world economy Costs.

Employers pay what the job is worth. They are not welfare distribution centers.

Government fixes the Standard of Worth in our Republic. And, yes, they are market friendly means of income generation and redistribution.

No they do not fix a standard of worth.

One of the biggest errors of marx was his value of labor theory which you are repeating .

Value is always subjective and cannot be set

 

[PoliticalChic]

The blinders are off:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slammed the current economic model in New York City and the world-at-large during a recent speech; bizarrely claiming there’s “plenty of money,” it’s just not properly distributed. The Big Apple Democrat was speaking at his State of the City address when he made the stunning admission; vowing to redistribute the wealth throughout the nation’s largest metropolis.

"There’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city," Mayor de Blasio said. "It’s just in the wrong hands!"
​

Yup........like most socialists....they want your money. They feel they have the right to just take it whenever they can manufacture a reason....or manufacture a crisis that warrants taking more.​

This is every Democrat going back to FDR

FDR....hated successful businessmen because he was a failure at that endeavor.

He was a lawyer and was successful in his trade..including the wealth and position of his family he never did without.

He was a politician with law degree who was successful at politics and nothing more

Politics is exactly the opposite of a trade or business

1. As I said....FDR was a failure who never forgot that he was.

2. Franklin Roosevelt had a visceral animosity toward businessmen, entrepreneurs, successful capitalists. And he had a way with words, in describing them. "unscrupulous money changers..." the greed and shortsightedness of bankers and businessmen," "..rulers of the exchange of mankind's goods have failed through their own stubbornness and their own incompetence" "we apply social values more noble than mere monetary profit." "there must be an end to a conduct in banking and in business which too often has given to a sacred trust the likeness of callous and selfish wrongdoing."

Wow! What the heck was that about? He was besmirching his fellow Americans, many of whom were responsible for the progress of society.

I'm about to tell you.


3. Franklin Roosevelt came from a very wealthy family, so one may puzzle at the vituperation he leveled at similar folks. Perhaps that very background is the reason, as with the politician George McGovern, he never learned how business worked, or how to earn money. His mother Sara reported: "Money was never discussed at home....All his books and toys were provided for him. We never subjected the boy to a lot of don'ts." "BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward, p.125-126

a. Then again...how could they teach him about finance, after all, his father, James, inherited his fortune...and almost lost it by way of poor investments. His mother's father, Warren Delano, made his money selling opium illegally to Chinese addicts. When he retired to legitimate business, he didn't do much better than Franklin's father. Delano went back to the Opium trade, which is why Sara spent early years in China. "BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward, p. 71.



4. Based on the hagiography, one can't help but be surprised at how mediocre young Franklin was at just about everything. Prep school was Groton, college, Harvard....excelling at neither sports nor academics. "I can't understand this thing about Frank. He never amounted to much at school." "BEFORE THE TRUMPET: Young Franklin Roosevelt, 1882-1905," by Geoffrey C. Ward,, p. 180-181

a. A 'C to C+' student; not much for homework, study, or research....but he focused on social-political clubs, debates and journalism.

b. Not the only rejection, but a significant one, was his attempt to join Porcellian, the oldest and most elite social club at Harvard. Theodore Roosevelt and other members of the Roosevelt family belonged to the club, but Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was president of the Harvard Crimson, never managed to be elected a member. At some time, in his late thirties, he told his relative Sheffield Cowles that this had been "the greatest disappointment in his life". Frances Richardson Keller, Fictions of U. S. History : A Theory & Four Illustrations, p. 116.

Porcellian members were future entrepreneurs, businessmen, bankers, and corporate lawyers.
And they had rejected Franklin Roosevelt.



Perhaps the reason for his undying love of Joseph Stalin.

 

[Soupnazi630]

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

Wrong.

Both sides benefit under capitalism

The fact that no one owns others destroys your premise and proves you wrong.

Those transactions are voluntary regardless of whether it is what one needs or what one wants.

Explain how both sides benefit again; the vulture chart - Google Search

Is Capitalism Moral?

1.” Many people believe that free market capitalism is selfish, even immoral. They say it's about greed, about a hunger for money and power; that it helps the rich and hurts the poor. They're wrong. The free market is not only economically superior, it is morally superior to any other way of organizing economic behavior. Here's why.

2. The free market calls for voluntary actions between individuals. There's no coercion.


3. People accuse the free market of not being moral because they say it's a zero-sum game, like poker, where if you win, it means that I have to lose. But the free market is not a zero-sum game. It's a positive sum game. You do something good for me, such as give me that steak and I'll do something good for you -- give you twenty dollars. I'm better off because I valued the steak more than I valued the $20 and the grocer is better off because he valued the $20 more than he valued the steak. We both win.

4.Ironically, it's the government, not the free market, that creates zero-sum games in our economy. If you use the government to get a food stamp, a farm subsidy or a business bail out, you will benefit -- but at the expense of your fellow citizens.

Isn't it more moral to require that people serve their fellow man in order to have a claim on what he produces rather than not serve others and still have a claim?

5.But, a lot of people ask, what about giant corporations? Don't they have too much power over our lives? Not in a free market. Because in a free market We, the People, decide the fate of companies who want our business.

Free market capitalism will punish a corporation that does not satisfy customers or fails to use resources efficiently. Businesses, big and small, that wish to prosper are held accountable by the people who vote with their dollars. And, again, it's the government that can undo this.

6….. government bailout essentially meant to them: "You don't have to be accountable to customers and stock holders.' No matter how inferior your product is and no matter how inefficient you are, we'll keep you in business by taking your fellow man's money. When government interferes in this way, it takes the power away from the people and rewards companies that couldn't compete successfully in the marketplace. That may work out very well for politicians, big unions and corporate officers, but it seldom does for the tax payer. That's why a free market system can only work if there is limited government. Limited government means you and I decide which businesses survive.


7. That's the America that our Founding Fathers envisioned -- a limited government that has only a few specifically mentioned -- or enumerated -- powers that are listed in Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution. It's this brilliant, limited-government notion that produced the wealthiest nation in history. In a free market, the ambition and the voluntary effort of citizens, not the government, drives the economy. That is: people, to the best of their ability, shaping their own destiny.”

Evidently you missed out on US history where men died trying to not be coerced into unjust positions at work..

Evidently you missed the part where those acts of coercion failed and are nothing more than anecdotal

Yeah that's why you enjoy working only forty hours a week instead of ninety two..

That was created by capitalists not the state

The laws came after most employers were already doing it.

 

[Soupnazi630]

The blinders are off:

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio slammed the current economic model in New York City and the world-at-large during a recent speech; bizarrely claiming there’s “plenty of money,” it’s just not properly distributed. The Big Apple Democrat was speaking at his State of the City address when he made the stunning admission; vowing to redistribute the wealth throughout the nation’s largest metropolis.

"There’s plenty of money in the world. Plenty of money in this city," Mayor de Blasio said. "It’s just in the wrong hands!"
​

Yup........like most socialists....they want your money. They feel they have the right to just take it whenever they can manufacture a reason....or manufacture a crisis that warrants taking more.​

This is every Democrat going back to FDR

FDR....hated successful businessmen because he was a failure at that endeavor.

He was a lawyer and was successful in his trade..including the wealth and position of his family he never did without.

He was a politician with law degree who was successful at politics and nothing more

Politics is exactly the opposite of a trade or business

When he wasn't a politician he did nothing..Sure buddy..

Sure boy I know you are uninformed .

You believe what you want without studying the details.

 

[danielpalos]

it must be, it says so, Expressly.

It does not and it is not

Providing for the general welfare must be a general power.

Individual welfare is not general welfare.

The general welfare must be comprehensive and cover individuals.

Nope cause that only increases dependency laziness and failure.

nope; it must solve for capitalism's natural laissez-fair laziness regarding full employment.

 

[danielpalos]

you appeal to ignorance of that economic concept; why is that?

It is not an economic concept it is a claim you and others pulled out of thin air

the right wing simply makes up their rejection through simple bigotry.

No you simply make up false claims with no basis in fact and they are rejected with no need for evidence.


Your constant repetition of bigotry is proof you are wrong as you can only label and not present intelligent arguments

i already looked up the concept of Capitalism's natural rate of unemployment. It is an economic concept anyone who is discussing economics should understand.

It is not an economic concept it is an obscure idea you made up or heard and it is not shared but intelligent people especially not economists.

You have only appeal to authority where there is no authority or expertise.

you appeal to ignorance to refute my argument?

 

[danielpalos]

only the right wing is that dumb.

Social services cost the equivalent to fourteen dollars an hour. There is absolutely no reason to subsidize employers with Cheap labor in our First World economy.

That's not what's going on.

Yes, it is. A first world economy Costs.

Employers pay what the job is worth. They are not welfare distribution centers.

Government fixes the Standard of Worth in our Republic. And, yes, they are market friendly means of income generation and redistribution.

No they do not fix a standard of worth.

One of the biggest errors of marx was his value of labor theory which you are repeating .

Value is always subjective and cannot be set

yes; they do. why do you believe they don't?