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

[AntonToo]

So you call more people receiving means tested welfare of some sort than those working full time year around as a small minority? That's strange. If out of two groups those getting a handout is greater than those working to fund them, that makes the handout freeloaders a majority.

Over 100 million people receive means tested welfare. If they weren't such a large group that had influence, the Democrats wouldn't pander to them with someone else's money.

Wow over 100 million - amazing.

You are right, time to kick those old and disabled bums off of Social Security.

Republicans should make that their platform and run on it.

 

[dblack]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

 

[Indeependent]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

 

[AntonToo]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

It's OK that you get handouts. If you're so meaningless that you have to have it to live, I can live without it. Understand one thing. Even with you having it handed to you and it be taken from me, I'll still have way more than you ever will.

Oh fuck you, I happen to work, make good money, and pay a lot of taxes.

Not everyone in this world is an asshole like yourself that just can't stand the thought of some of your taxes going to help someone.

 

[dblack]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric. But we can discuss it if you like. How do you think government should be limited?

 

[AntonToo]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

 

[Indeependent]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric.

So your have beliefs without form or substance?

 

[dblack]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

 

[dblack]

The other option is to stay right here and stand up for Constitutionally limited government.

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric.

So your have beliefs without form or substance?

So, no? Please don't inject bullshit I didn't say.

My point is that it's not MY job to analyze for you the extent and limitations of government. I'm happy to talk about it with you, and share my opinions, but if you don't care enough to analyze it for yourself, it won't matter much.

 

[Indeependent]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

I presume an anti-Globalization movement would adversely affect your portfolio and that your career was only minimally affected by globalization.

 

[dblack]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

I presume an anti-Globalization movement would adversely affect your portfolio and that your career was only minimally affected by globalization.

You presume wrong.

 

[rightwinger]

If you leave the "Kill Obamacare" language out of it, he may at least look at it

Prior to many things coming to his desk that had nothing to do with Obamacare, he said he would veto them.

Why shouldn't Obamacare go away? I have proposed a solution where both of us get what we want completely and it doesn't involve the government at all when it comes to healthcare. Do you agree?

Republicans have show an open disdain and an unwillingness to work with our President. That is why they could not get a simple thing like Keystone passed.
Sometimes you have to give a little to get a little

Yeah, the we won now sit down and STFU attitude he has is a willingness to work. When he has indicated he'd veto something before it's ever written because it includes something he doesn't like, that's not willing to work.

Well here is your problem

When you slip "kill Obamacare" or "kill Planned Parenthood" language into every bill, it may please your batshit crazy base but the bill is DOA

The problem is the claim of a veto is made BEFORE the content of the bill is written.

Show me one

 

[Indeependent]

You can stand all you want, safety net is not going anywhere and conservatives that propose the phase out of these programs are in for a lifetime of rejection by America and developed world in general.

May as well pack up if you can't stand it.

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric.

So your have beliefs without form or substance?

So, no? Please don't inject bullshit I didn't say.

My point is that it's not MY job to analyze for you the extent and limitations of government. I'm happy to talk about it with you, and share my opinions, but if you don't care enough to analyze it for yourself, it won't matter much.

Bull crap.
You have been on enough forums for enough years to somewhat concretize your ideas.
I'm fed up with Libertarians who have zero ideas about how they would actualize their "platform".

 

[Votto]

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 the goal is to own companies in name.

Hitler was a cutting edge Progressive for his day. He was adamant about protecting the environment, he cared more about animal rights than people rights, he took away guns from the populace, and he coerced industry to do his bidding.

Hitler knew that bureaucrats are not CEO's, the same reason you don't hire a lawyer to do surgery on you. Hitler once said, "Why nationalize industry when you can nationalize the people?"

Control is what matters, not owning them in name.

Not owning them in name has an additional benefit. The next time GM needs another bail out people don't blame the government, they blame "private industry".

 

[dblack]

Predictions aren't worth much. I certainly wouldn't have predicted Trump.

The problem is that when you assign government the job of deciding who gets what, the greedy and ambitious will make sure they are in charge. That's why expanding government's role in 'helping people' never quite does the trick. And it inevitably helps the people pulling the strings more than anyone else.

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric.

So your have beliefs without form or substance?

So, no? Please don't inject bullshit I didn't say.

My point is that it's not MY job to analyze for you the extent and limitations of government. I'm happy to talk about it with you, and share my opinions, but if you don't care enough to analyze it for yourself, it won't matter much.

Bull crap.
You have been on enough forums for enough years to somewhat concretize your ideas.
I'm fed up with Libertarians who have zero ideas about how they would actualize their "platform".

You're silly. I have lots of ideas. I talk about them quite a lot on here. I was simply responding to your lazy demand that I do your homework for you. Have you ever even thought about the structure of government? About what constitutionally limited government means?

 

[Indeependent]

It's YOUR job to analyze for us the extent and limitations of government.
I'll wait.

I wouldn't work. You have to do it for yourself or it will be nothing but empty rhetoric.

So your have beliefs without form or substance?

So, no? Please don't inject bullshit I didn't say.

My point is that it's not MY job to analyze for you the extent and limitations of government. I'm happy to talk about it with you, and share my opinions, but if you don't care enough to analyze it for yourself, it won't matter much.

Bull crap.
You have been on enough forums for enough years to somewhat concretize your ideas.
I'm fed up with Libertarians who have zero ideas about how they would actualize their "platform".

You're silly. I have lots of ideas. I talk about them quite a lot on here. I was simply responding to your lazy demand that I do your homework for you. Have you ever even thought about the structure of government? About what constitutionally limited government means?

You have ZERO concrete ideas.
NO government is NOT an idea.
How large should our military be?
Who maintains highways, etc...?

 

[AntonToo]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

But in the context of Debt reduction compromise this means what exactly?

 

[dblack]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

But in the context of Debt reduction compromise this means what exactly?

The same thing it means in any other context. In this case, it was a response to your claim that anyone who doesn't agree your views, or your predictions of future trends, should give up or leave.

 

[Conservative65]

So you call more people receiving means tested welfare of some sort than those working full time year around as a small minority? That's strange. If out of two groups those getting a handout is greater than those working to fund them, that makes the handout freeloaders a majority.

Over 100 million people receive means tested welfare. If they weren't such a large group that had influence, the Democrats wouldn't pander to them with someone else's money.

Wow over 100 million - amazing.

You are right, time to kick those old and disabled bums off of Social Security.

Republicans should make that their platform and run on it.

That doesn't include social security, retard. I referenced MEANS-TESTED programs. Do you know what that means.

It's clear you don't know the difference between Contributory programs (Social Security, Medicare) and Non-Contributory programs (the 13 where someone doesn't contribute to the pot from which they draw).

 

[Conservative65]

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

But in the context of Debt reduction compromise this means what exactly?

Predictions aren't worth much.

You are delirious.

It's possible. Regardless, I don't base my political and moral convictions on which way the wind is blowing.

But in the context of Debt reduction compromise this means what exactly?

The same thing it means in any other context. In this case, it was a response to your claim that anyone who doesn't agree your views, or your predictions of future trends, should give up or leave.

Yet he wants to argue that Obama and the lefties were willing to work on compromise.