Can socialists in this country explain how taxing American corporations/companies more is good?

[francoHFW]

That 10% should go to tax cuts for the nonrich.

They don't recover as fast as us. No fracking etc. I've lived in UK, France, and Spain and you are an idiot.

Based on your supposed observations, I can only conclude: 1) you're a damned liar, and never been out of your mother's basement, or 2) you spent you whole time in Europe fired up ganja

Why do Eurocars have to have their suspensions tweaked for our crap roads? They have many fewer poor and living wage, cheap University, great vacations, and training. WTF are you talking about?

LOL --- selecting diffuse 'facts' (very much in question) to support a fallacious argument.

Eurocars, in general, have to have their suspensions "tweaked" in order to meet our more stringent safety standards. The same applies for glass, lights etc. It has nothing to do with our roads. I bought my first Jaguar while assigned to USAFE in Belgium --- great deal UNTIL I picked up the tab for making it roadworthy in the US.

To argue that they have "many fewer poor" is disingenuous. Your 'argument' is fallacious. You should be comparing standard of living. Our poor make more than the 'average' European income.

The same applies for your nonsensical comment about universities - compare them not to each other but to the average income for that country. You'll come away with a completely different observation.

As for vacations, benefits, etc ---- what the hell do you think is happening in Europe today? Pensions, 30 hour work weeks, socialized medicine are driving EVERY country toward bankruptcy. Some will take longer to get there, but they are all headed down the same road.

Boooshies drove them to bankruptcy, dupe. Duh. They don't have poor like ours. We're a gd oligarchy.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I apologize ...

I thought you were somebody who hadn't dipped into an alternate reality. Our poor are the worst? Seriously? LOL

DEFINITELY worse off than in France, Germani, Holland Switz, Scandinavia, OZ, NZ, Canada. DUHHHHH Dupes...
None And get 6 week vacations, free day care, free health care etc etc DUHHHHHHH.

 

[Spare_change]

That 10% should go to tax cuts for the nonrich.

Based on your supposed observations, I can only conclude: 1) you're a damned liar, and never been out of your mother's basement, or 2) you spent you whole time in Europe fired up ganja

Why do Eurocars have to have their suspensions tweaked for our crap roads? They have many fewer poor and living wage, cheap University, great vacations, and training. WTF are you talking about?

LOL --- selecting diffuse 'facts' (very much in question) to support a fallacious argument.

Eurocars, in general, have to have their suspensions "tweaked" in order to meet our more stringent safety standards. The same applies for glass, lights etc. It has nothing to do with our roads. I bought my first Jaguar while assigned to USAFE in Belgium --- great deal UNTIL I picked up the tab for making it roadworthy in the US.

To argue that they have "many fewer poor" is disingenuous. Your 'argument' is fallacious. You should be comparing standard of living. Our poor make more than the 'average' European income.

The same applies for your nonsensical comment about universities - compare them not to each other but to the average income for that country. You'll come away with a completely different observation.

As for vacations, benefits, etc ---- what the hell do you think is happening in Europe today? Pensions, 30 hour work weeks, socialized medicine are driving EVERY country toward bankruptcy. Some will take longer to get there, but they are all headed down the same road.

Boooshies drove them to bankruptcy, dupe. Duh. They don't have poor like ours. We're a gd oligarchy.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I apologize ...

I thought you were somebody who hadn't dipped into an alternate reality. Our poor are the worst? Seriously? LOL

DEFINITELY worse off than in France, Germani, Holland Switz, Scandinavia, OZ, NZ, Canada. DUHHHHH Dupes...
None

LOL --- that somehow proves that our poor are worse off than they are?

How about this? Create a list of 10 European countries. Compare the standard of living relative to the income of the poor for each country. Now, do the same for the US.

Tell us what you find.

 

[francoHFW]

That 10% should go to tax cuts for the nonrich.
Why do Eurocars have to have their suspensions tweaked for our crap roads? They have many fewer poor and living wage, cheap University, great vacations, and training. WTF are you talking about?

LOL --- selecting diffuse 'facts' (very much in question) to support a fallacious argument.

Eurocars, in general, have to have their suspensions "tweaked" in order to meet our more stringent safety standards. The same applies for glass, lights etc. It has nothing to do with our roads. I bought my first Jaguar while assigned to USAFE in Belgium --- great deal UNTIL I picked up the tab for making it roadworthy in the US.

To argue that they have "many fewer poor" is disingenuous. Your 'argument' is fallacious. You should be comparing standard of living. Our poor make more than the 'average' European income.

The same applies for your nonsensical comment about universities - compare them not to each other but to the average income for that country. You'll come away with a completely different observation.

As for vacations, benefits, etc ---- what the hell do you think is happening in Europe today? Pensions, 30 hour work weeks, socialized medicine are driving EVERY country toward bankruptcy. Some will take longer to get there, but they are all headed down the same road.

Boooshies drove them to bankruptcy, dupe. Duh. They don't have poor like ours. We're a gd oligarchy.

Are you fucking kidding me?

I apologize ...

I thought you were somebody who hadn't dipped into an alternate reality. Our poor are the worst? Seriously? LOL

DEFINITELY worse off than in France, Germani, Holland Switz, Scandinavia, OZ, NZ, Canada. DUHHHHH Dupes...
None

LOL --- that somehow proves that our poor are worse off than they are?

How about this? Create a list of 10 European countries. Compare the standard of living relative to the income of the poor for each country. Now, do the same for the US.

Tell us what you find.

WTF? LOL. Try and find ghettos in the EU.

 

[Andylusion]

How do you want to provide public services, keep the military etc. if you dont tax people? And if there is a choice between taxing the poor and middle class or taxing the super rich, Id choose the super rich.

First off, you can't tax the super rich. It doesn't work. They move their companies and their investments, and their assets out of the country.

France tried this. The wealthy started leaving. It was a disaster as companies closed up, and moved out of France.

Greece tried this. You have seen what happened there.

Venezuela tried this. Venezuela is a nightmare.

So, you can't tax the rich, and leave the poor and middle class alone.

And when you look around the world, that is what you see. When you look at Denmark for example, the people who earn about $6,000 a year there, pay 37% in taxes. The lower class pays massive amounts of tax, to cover all their social services.

Same is true of pensions in most of Europe. Many countries force their public, even the poorest, to pay 30% for what in the US would be Social Security. We pay 15%.

There is no example anywhere in this world, where the rich pay for the social services of the poor, who do not pay tax. No example anywhere.

Because it does not work.

But the other side is, if we only paid for the military and social services, our tax rate could be cut by 75%.

It's all the special benefits and socialism, that costs so much. For many years we could have cut the military to ZERO, and still ran a deficit. Because social security costs too much.

And it's the same in Europe. Pension systems across the western world, are going broke. Socialism, does not work. It never has. It never will.

I don't think he meant just tax the rich and no one else. Of course that wouldn't work.

No I didnt meant that but tax the rich much more.

Right. Every time that is tried, it doesn't work. See prior post for examples.

 

[Andylusion]

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

So ... let's test your knowledge.

Who owns those "hedge and superannuation funds"? When they make money, who makes money? Do those "owners" pay taxes on the income derived from those accounts?

I don't care.

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

But you are wrong.

Let's look at the facts:

View attachment 85473

Now here's the reality. Dumping your partisan made up crap, the facts are that largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions), all of these add up to:

37% of Corporate Stock is owned by "mum and dads".

Of the 15% of stock owned by insurance companies:

6% or a little less than half are part of annuity, which elderly get for stable income.

4% goes to non-profits, which would include things like endowments for Universities or the Red Cross.

Plus the "Other" category includes government holdings, and 529 Savings plans.

That leaves a 20% chunk going to foreigners. What makes up that? Well some of it is foreign companies that buy stock in American companies, just like Ford owned a large chunk of stock in Mazada. So too does the Wanda Group owns stock in AMC Theaters in the US, and Sunseeker International, a yacht company in the UK.

Additionally, pension funds and retirement funds across the world, buy stock in US companies, just like I own stock in Enbridge, Novartis, and Enel.

So once again, a large chunk of Foreign owned stock is "mum and dads"

That leaves us with the taxable accounts. The stocks owned by hedge funds and private investors, and the wealthy 1%, the Waltons and Buffets of the world. All of these people, combined, barely make up 25% of the stock market.

To be as blunt as I can possibly be..... when you dump your dumb partisan left-wing bull crap out the window, here's the reality.

Roughly 50% or more of all the stocks are owned by "mum and dads".

Less that 25% are owned by "hedge and superannuation funds".

And most of the rest, is an indirect benefit to the public, like endowments for universities, insurance company benefits, and the Red Cross and so on.

I just proved conclusively, that you made up that crap. So what is your argument now, huh?

Let me guess ... you live in the state of Delusion and the city of Ignorance.

You don't "care" who owns hedge funds?

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

So ... let's test your knowledge.

Who owns those "hedge and superannuation funds"? When they make money, who makes money? Do those "owners" pay taxes on the income derived from those accounts?

I don't care.

1) Corporations sell stock in order to fund their business venture. This venture CREATES jobs.

2) Those stocks are purchased with POST-TAX dollars. Those taxes are used to fund the myriad activities of the government at all levels.

3) The corporation makes a gross profit. Federal corporate taxes ARE PAID on that profit. Then, state and local corporate taxes ARE PAID on the original amount. No allowance is allowed for the federal taxes already lowering the base profit (in most states).

4) The remaining profit is distributed to the stockholders, as a return on their investment. That money is AGAIN taxes, usually as capital gains.

5) The corporation, as an entity, is not able to take a profit. They can reinvest a portion of the gross profit, and that reinvestment CREATES jobs. They have no other use for money.

6) Ergo, the governments get their share - they stifle job creation. They tax the investor, the corporation, and the employees. Frankly, they are running out of entities to tax.

7) The argument that corporations use our infrastructure, and thus should have an increased tax burden, is nonsensical. Investors pay for that infrastructure through the income and capital gains taxes they pay. Why should the government get paid twice from the same dollar?

8) Governments invest in infrastructure in order to attract businesses - and then you propose to create an onerous tax load on the corporation that will drive it out. Does that make any sense whatsoever?

But the reality is that hedge and superannuation funds own massive amounts of these stocks. Not mum and dads....So it's just one big merrygoround where Wall St clips the ticket everytime the gravy train passes them by. About two years ago Apple had over $200 billion in cash reserves. I don't feel sorry for them if they have to pay more..

But you are wrong.

Let's look at the facts:

View attachment 85473

Now here's the reality. Dumping your partisan made up crap, the facts are that largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions), all of these add up to:

37% of Corporate Stock is owned by "mum and dads".

Of the 15% of stock owned by insurance companies:

6% or a little less than half are part of annuity, which elderly get for stable income.

4% goes to non-profits, which would include things like endowments for Universities or the Red Cross.

Plus the "Other" category includes government holdings, and 529 Savings plans.

That leaves a 20% chunk going to foreigners. What makes up that? Well some of it is foreign companies that buy stock in American companies, just like Ford owned a large chunk of stock in Mazada. So too does the Wanda Group owns stock in AMC Theaters in the US, and Sunseeker International, a yacht company in the UK.

Additionally, pension funds and retirement funds across the world, buy stock in US companies, just like I own stock in Enbridge, Novartis, and Enel.

So once again, a large chunk of Foreign owned stock is "mum and dads"

That leaves us with the taxable accounts. The stocks owned by hedge funds and private investors, and the wealthy 1%, the Waltons and Buffets of the world. All of these people, combined, barely make up 25% of the stock market.

To be as blunt as I can possibly be..... when you dump your dumb partisan left-wing bull crap out the window, here's the reality.

Roughly 50% or more of all the stocks are owned by "mum and dads".

Less that 25% are owned by "hedge and superannuation funds".

And most of the rest, is an indirect benefit to the public, like endowments for universities, insurance company benefits, and the Red Cross and so on.

I just proved conclusively, that you made up that crap. So what is your argument now, huh?

Let me guess ... you live in the state of Constant Delusion and the city of Complete Ignorance.

You don't "care" who owns hedge funds? Knowledge scares you, doesn't it?

By your own admission, "largest segment of the market is IRAs, Retirement plans (401Ks), Defined benefit plans (Pensions, usually for Unions)".

So, tell me, when you take income (in the form of 'corporate tax') from each of those groups, who gets hurt? Who DOESNT get that money? Who DOESN'T see an increase in their dividends, pension plans, etc.? WHO owns stock in the insurance companies? WHO doesn't realize increased income because you stole it as 'corporate tax'?

What money did those 'moms and dads' use to buy that stock? POST-tax dollars. WHO paid taxes on the income those investments made? Those very same 'moms and dads'. So, the simple truth is you are going to steal the income of those 'moms and dads' one way or the other.

Face it .... corporate tax is just another liberal attempt to get something they, simply, don't deserve, so that they can give SOME of it to other people who, simply, don't deserve it.

Tell the truth ... it's not a tax, it's a penalty ... a penalty on success.

Yeah, that was in fact my argument as well.

 

[Andylusion]

Go ahead and explain why that is a good thing for the country.

Keep in mind folks that the American socialists are by far the dumbest people on the planet.

Let us hear why American companies should be taxed more and why that is a good thing.

I don't think we should tax American corporations. Instead, we should nationalize them. Then they won't have to pay any taxes at all.

Hmmm. I don't know about that because once you take away the profit incentives and eliminate competition for that profit we might start to look like Russia. But I do think healthcare ought to be nationalized.

I'm not saying every corporation in America should be nationalized. Just financial institutions, telecom/cable/internet, oil companies, healthcare, insurance companies, chemical and food corporations.

and when you nationalize them.... they will follow the same pattern we have seen all over the world. They become incompetent, inefficient, and quickly become a drain on the governments that run them.

You realize that the largest, and most costly bailout to happen between 2007 and 2010, wasn't any private bank. It was Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

So let's expand that to cover every company you listed.... then we can bailout hundreds of trillions, instead of $400 Billion or whatever it was we spent on just two companies run by the government, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Then we can have dozens of politicians conducting government wide corruption.

Brilliant dude. Brilliant.

 

[billyerock1991]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

 

[Andylusion]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

 

[billyerock1991]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

this has got to be the stupidest post I've ever seen... you have no Idea where the money goes and whose spending it
...Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem is this bull shit at its best ... or what !!! have you look at how much of these non-producing people cost the national budget each year ??? by your ignorant statement here you haven't looked ... you just responded to typical right wing propaganda ... .008 percent of the national budget goes to people on welfare .... 75% of the taxed dollars for the rich and the top 1% goes in their pockets ... from not paying their fair share ...by getting tax deductions they get ... now you're trying to say welfare people cause this 17 trillion dollar debt ??? how about republicans passing unfunded legislation ... could that have been the cause??? Naw its them damn welfare people HUH...

 

[JQPublic1]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

You sound like Hitler!

 

[billyerock1991]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

you know after you mention it he does


Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

You sound like Hitler!

you know after you mention it he does

 

[billyerock1991]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

 

[Conservative65]

Oh, so you make a statement then place conditions AFTER you were proven wrong.

Are you a clown?
You were a Representative in a one car town and you're trying to generalize that into the big city?
That's a Talmud 1.0 FAIL.

I was? Why don't you tell me where I live since you seem to know about it so much.

You didn't react so well to my response.
I'm in the Big City fill with corruption and I experience it from the INSIDE of the room.

You made a claim about where I lived yet nothing about where it is. Since you don't know, your claim is dismissed for being stupid.

So tell me you were in charge of hundreds of millions of dollars over hundreds of departments over several million people.

Very few, if any, LOCAL governments are. Doesn't change that you said local government officials were beholden to business. You were incorrect.

 

[Conservative65]

The bought off GOP obstructionists and the dupes are unwilling to do anything about it...I know, a tax cut for the rich...

What amazes me is the hypocrisy of the right. After eight years of complaining about the ever growing national debt, every Republican candidate immidiately calls for budgets that slash taxes on the wealthy to record low levels. Every Republican plan added at least 10 trillion to our debt
Not a single Republican plan would cut our debt

Last time I looked, almost $10 trillion of that debt was added during Obama's 8 years.

STILL 3-400 BILLION for assistance for victims of most recent GOP corrupt depression, 7-8 TRILLION in all...Great job!

That assumes they weren't already getting it before Bush.

Did you miss the corrupt Boooshie DEPRESSION? That's what those extra figures are for...

I don't believe what you SAY. You already said EVERYONE pays a between a certain percentage in taxes then provided a graph that disproved your own claim.

 

[Conservative65]

Last time I looked, almost $10 trillion of that debt was added during Obama's 8 years.

Your point?

Where has a single Trump economic policy reduced our national debt? Republicans whined like little bitches about the debt, yet have no plans to reduce it

Proves your claim incorrect.

Trump hasn't been President. Obama has and the debt has almost doubled.

The House and Senate are run by the republicans....they control the spending.....Shrub left a $1.2 trillion annual deficit for FY2008 and destroyed the whole economy. Obama cut the annual deficit in half.

Actually, the facts are somewhat different ... Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate.

If control means 200+ filibusters in 2 years, dupe. lol. Actual control about 30 days in session, all spent on ACA. D'OH!

Control means having a majority just like you consider Republicans having that majority as having control. Typical Liberal double standard where the same conditions mean something different when Democrats fail to do anything.

 

[Conservative65]

Proves your claim incorrect.

Trump hasn't been President. Obama has and the debt has almost doubled.

Obama is not running, Trump is

If Republicans are as upset about debt as they claim ...why do none of their plans reduce it?

Trump isn't President. Obama is.

Are you saying that something that hasn't been tried fails because the results haven't occurred?

Republicans have had total control of Congress for two years.....why haven't they reduced the debt like they promised?

Because Obama has vetoed every program designed to cut government spending .... check it out.

The spending that helps the nonrich, yes.

You mean handing freeloaders something for nothing.

 

[Conservative65]

see sig

So, you invoke your nonsense in your own signature, and we're supposed to be somehow impressed by that?

Consistently, throughout this thread, your comments have been challenged, and you have just as consistently failed to respond to the challenge.

Frankly, you're getting b-o-r-i-n-g.

Sig is more facts than you've heard in years, dupe.

You posted a chart yesterday claiming it said something it didn't. The numbers you said it showed did not do that. Rather than being stand up about it and admit you were wrong, something everyone knows Liberal don't do, you tried to make an excuse and add something to it the chart didn't show nor that you could prove.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

How the fuck can we fund the country and pay down the debt without taxes ?

Would you rather we just taxed working stiffs and let the companies off ?

Oh. All the winner countries are socialists .

All of the loser countries are socialist.

You do know that, right?

Let us know the imigration problems a country like Finland has. Thanks.

Are you ready for the country to turn away the mass influx of refugees into this country?

Do any of those countries that you mention (funny too how they are all predominantly white and you morons blame white people for everything) have a military? Do they have a massive number of Mexicans crossing their borders? No?

Hilarious.

whats funnies your stupidity ... you complain about the national debt, then in the same sentence you whine about people who you believe are causing the countries biggest debt ... by being on assistance ... you stupidity out shines us all ... so tell us the difference between a social conservative and a social democrat ???

Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem. Everyone consumes wealth, but not everyone produces wealth. So inherently any individual that does not produce wealth, but still consumes wealth, is by definition a cause of the decline of the country.

However, beyond that, there are people who do work, and do produce wealth, but they still consume more wealth, than they produce.

Those people, as well, are a burden on society, even if they are still working.

Now of course the automatic exception, are those who are impaired, or incapable of work. But beyond the limitations, people who are able bodied people, capable of producing, should be required to produce.

Being on assistance, isn't inherently problematic. What is inherently problematic, is consuming more than you produce.

If the value of the goods and services you consume, is greater than the value of the goods and services you produce, then by definition, our entire society would be more wealthy, if you didn't exist. You are a burden on society, that our governments must tax and pay for, or borrow and pay for.

That is the problem.

View attachment 85614

When did Boeing start making solar panels or electric cars?????

 

[Conservative65]

With unions, those jobs get paid more than the skills are worth.

No they don't. A union ensures that the workforce is getting a fair share of the wealth they create

$50 trillion in wealth has been added to our economy since 2009. Workers saw very little of that. Strong unions would have ensured it

Fair share? Tell me how much is your fair share of someone else's money?

It is the workers creating that wealth. Because their ability to collectively negotiate, they see less and less of that wealth they generate

There's your mistake ... workers don't "create" the wealth. They work for a wage .... they are a tool the employer uses to create wealth, no different than a hammer, or a printing press. Are you suggesting we should pay hammers a 'living wage', not? What do you think the 'living wage' is for a printing press these days.

If you are not a rich guy I dont understand your views. Socialists fought to change the working week to humanistic hours and to improve work environment for workers. Before even children had to work in factories hard menial labour. The minimum wage is another improvement, you cant pay 1$ a hour for hard work thats inhumane. There needs to be regulations or capitalists would eat the small people.

Socialists worked hard to get those that don't want to work something for nothing. Do you think those that own businesses and make lots doing it work just 40 hours week?

Paying someone with $1/hour skills more than $1/hour is inhumane.

Capitalism is an incentive for people to do better and improve themselves financially. Socialism is an incentive for people that want something for nothing to have more handed to them than they could earn based on their poor work ethic.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

this has got to be the stupidest post I've ever seen... you have no Idea where the money goes and whose spending it
...Well in general, anyone that is not producing, is a problem is this bull shit at its best ... or what !!! have you look at how much of these non-producing people cost the national budget each year ??? by your ignorant statement here you haven't looked ... you just responded to typical right wing propaganda ... .008 percent of the national budget goes to people on welfare .... 75% of the taxed dollars for the rich and the top 1% goes in their pockets ... from not paying their fair share ...by getting tax deductions they get ... now you're trying to say welfare people cause this 17 trillion dollar debt ??? how about republicans passing unfunded legislation ... could that have been the cause??? Naw its them damn welfare people HUH...

Unfunded legislation, like what for instance?

Not paying their fair share? The top 10% of wage earners in this country pay 70% of all collected federal income tax. If that's unfair, then what is fair?

.008% of our budget goes to welfare? You mean welfare checks or all welfare including things like food stamps and Medicaid? Would love to see your source on that one.

"A liberal believes that if you make money, you are not entitled to it, but if you want money, you are."
Ken Blackwell