Does a liberal have the IQ to understand how Republican capitalist health care.....

[jasonnfree]

Think big picture Edward not slogans.

Unless you are saying the Chinese have less government involvement and more freedom in their "capitalism" than we do.

Maybe they do, do they?

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Medicare works pretty good. So does the VA.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Medicare works pretty good. So does the VA.

except for trillions in unfunded liabilities!! A liberal has no idea what that means or if the medicare idea would work well in all industries. A liberal is like a child and for same reason should not be allowed to vote

 

[expatriate]

who cares, the point is, it's capitalist, the market rules in the end.

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Medicare works pretty good. So does the VA.

I am covered under TRICARE overseas. In November, I spent $8700 US (110K mexican pesos, more or less) for a major shoulder operation here in Mexico. I am getting a check from TRICARE for $8670 next week. I think our government run healthcare programs work fine. My shoulder surgery cost me WAY less than it would in the US, and our government is basically paying me every dime back. Pretty sweet. From my biased perspective, government run health care just got me a surgery that would have cost twice as much if I had been living stateside. Go Navy!

 

[jasonnfree]

Special Ed and his kind believe that American slavery was the best thing to happen to Africans.

Thomas Sowell believes it anyway. He's only the worlds greatest expert on refugee movements. If the bird brain liberal disagrees with him please say why or admit you lack the IQ to support your feelings and that you have no idea that feelings are different from thoughts.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

Thomas Sowell is a poster child "Stephin Fetchit Negro".

So is Walter Williams. Another house Negroe. He's always longing for the days after the civil war when there was less illegitimate births among blacks but more lynchings of blacks. He doesn't add that last part or his white masters wouldn't support him.

 

[jasonnfree]

The point is the Chinese system you are always saying is soo great is a fairly government controlled one. Is that what you like? Government controlled healthcare?

Medicare works pretty good. So does the VA.

I am covered under TRICARE overseas. In November, I spent $8700 US (110K mexican pesos, more or less) for a major shoulder operation here in Mexico. I am getting a check from TRICARE for $8670 next week. I think our government run healthcare programs work fine. My shoulder surgery cost me WAY less than it would in the US, and our government is basically paying me every dime back. Pretty sweet. From my biased perspective, government run health care just got me a surgery that would have cost twice as much if I had been living stateside. Go Navy!

Don't rub it in. I got out of the Navy in '66 as e4 and sometimes think, what if I stayed in.. oh well. Where do you stay in Mexico?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Thomas Sowell believes it anyway. He's only the worlds greatest expert on refugee movements. If the bird brain liberal disagrees with him please say why or admit you lack the IQ to support your feelings and that you have no idea that feelings are different from thoughts.

See why we are positive a liberal will be slow??

Thomas Sowell is a poster child "Stephin Fetchit Negro".

So is Walter Williams. Another house Negroe. He's always longing for the days after the civil war when there was less illegitimate births among blacks but more lynchings of blacks. He doesn't add that last part or his white masters wouldn't support him.

would you bet any money that he doesn't talk about that or are you lying???

Under liberalilsm there are more blacks living in prison than there were slaves in 1860. He mentions that too!!


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

 

[jasonnfree]

Thomas Sowell is a poster child "Stephin Fetchit Negro".

So is Walter Williams. Another house Negroe. He's always longing for the days after the civil war when there was less illegitimate births among blacks but more lynchings of blacks. He doesn't add that last part or his white masters wouldn't support him.

would you bet any money that he doesn't talk about that or are you lying???

Under liberalilsm there are more blacks living in prison than there were slaves in 1860. He mentions that too!!


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

Here's a link below about Walter saying this. Now tell me old uncle walter doesn't long for the old days when he was a house negroe snitchin' on the field negroes.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism? I think that republicans, being hard line on drugs have helped create the number of blacks in prison for even minor drug laws. It's usually cops and prison guards that advocate these harsh laws mostly for job security by the way, and it's mostly republicans that push through these laws.
You got any links yet about a liberal's IQ? I showed you my link.

http://dailycaller.com/2011/06/04/w...s-father-black-males-have-become-dispensable/

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?

too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

 

[jasonnfree]

Thomas Sowell is a poster child "Stephin Fetchit Negro".

So is Walter Williams. Another house Negroe. He's always longing for the days after the civil war when there was less illegitimate births among blacks but more lynchings of blacks. He doesn't add that last part or his white masters wouldn't support him.

would you bet any money that he doesn't talk about that or are you lying???

Under liberalilsm there are more blacks living in prison than there were slaves in 1860. He mentions that too!!


See why we are positive a liberal will be slow, so very very slow?

How do we bet money on a forum anyway? You're probably posting while working in a cubicle right now as a government employee and maybe you could get in trouble with the man

 

[jasonnfree]

.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?

too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

How about something in your own words, Ed? I'll read this later anyway, gotta pick up a grandkid from a government run school (oh, the horror, the poor child, this is child abuse)

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

.
So how are blacks being in prison the cause of liberalism?

too stupid!! The Great Society was a near genocide against American blacks. That when blacks first went to jail in large numbers and when the black family was destroyed. The loveless misogynist hip hop black culture can firmly be laid at the liberal doorstep. A liberal will lack the IQ to feel guilty about it!


Daniel Patrick Moynihan: "In too many cases, if our Government had set out determined to destroy the family, it couldn't have done greater damage than some of what we see today. Too often these programs, well-intentioned, welfare programs for example, which were meant to provide for temporary support, have undermined responsibility. They've robbed people of control of their lives, destroyed their dignity, in some cases -- and we've tried hard to change this -- encouraged people, man and wife, to live apart because they might just get a little bit more to put in their pockets."



we could survive slavery, we could survive Jim Crow, but we could not survive liberalism- Walter Williams

Even in the antebellum era, when slaves often weren’t permitted to wed, most black children lived with a biological mother and father. During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn’t do, what Jim Crow couldn’t do, what the harshest racism couldn’t do,” Mr. Williams says. “And that is to destroy the black family

The black family survived centuries of slavery and generations of Jim Crow, but it has disintegrated in the wake of the liberals' expansion of the welfare state. Most black children grew up in homes with two parents during all that time but most grow up with only one parent today.

Liberals have pushed affirmative action, supposedly for the benefit of blacks and other minorities. But two recent factual studies show that affirmative action in college admissions has led to black students with every qualification for success being artificially turned into failures by being mismatched with colleges for the sake of racial body count.

The two most recent books that show this with hard facts are "Mismatch" by Richard Sander and Stuart Taylor, Jr., and "Wounds That Will Not Heal" by Russell K. Nieli. My own book "Affirmative Action Around the World" shows the same thing with different evidence.



Thus began an unprecedented commitment of federal funds to a wide range of measures aimed at redistributing wealth in the United States.[1] From 1965 to 2008, nearly $16 trillion of taxpayer money (in constant 2008 dollars) was spent onmeans-tested welfare programs for the poor.

The economic milieu in which the War on Poverty arose is noteworthy. As of 1965, the number of Americans living below the official poverty line had been declining continuously since the beginning of the decade and was only about half of what it had been fifteen years earlier. Between 1950 and 1965, the proportion of people whose earnings put them below the poverty level, had decreased by more than 30%. The black poverty rate had been cut nearly in half between 1940 and 1960. In various skilled trades during the period of 1936-59, the incomes of blacks relative to whites had more than doubled. Further, the representation of blacks in professional and other high-level occupations grew more quickly during the five years preceding the launch of the War on Poverty than during the five years thereafter.

Despite these trends, the welfare state expanded dramatically after LBJ's statement. Between the mid-Sixties and the mid-Seventies, the dollar value of public housing quintupled and the amount spent on food stamps rose more than tenfold. From 1965 to 1969, government-provided benefits increased by a factor of 8; by 1974 such benefits were an astounding 20 times higher than they had been in 1965. Alsoas of 1974, federal spending on social-welfare programs amounted to 16% of America’s Gross National Product, a far cry from the 8% figure of 1960. By 1977 the number of people receiving public assistance had more than doubled since 1960.


The most devastating by-product of the mushrooming welfare state was the corrosive effect it had (along with powerful cultural phenomena such as the feminist and Black Power movements) on American family life, particularly in the black community.
 As provisions in welfare laws offered ever-increasing economic incentives for shunning marriage and avoiding the formation of two-parent families, illegitimacy rates rose dramatically.

The calamitous breakdown of the black family is a comparatively recent phenomenon, coinciding precisely with the rise of the welfare state. Throughout the epoch of slavery and into the early decades of the twentieth century, most black children grew up in two-parent households.
 Post-Civil War studies revealed that most black couples in their forties had been together for at least twenty years. In southern urban areas around 1880, nearly three-fourths of black households were husband-or father-present; in southern rural settings, the figure approached 86%. As of 1940, the illegitimacy rate among blacks nationwide was approximately 15%—scarcely one-fifth of the current figure.
 As late as 1950, black women were more likely to be married than white women, and only 9% of black families with children were headed by a single parent.

During the nine decades between the Emancipation Proclamation and the 1950s, the black family remained a strong, stable institution. Its cataclysmic destruction was subsequently set in motion by such policies as the anti-marriage incentives that are built into the welfare system have served only to exacerbate the problem. As George Mason University professor Walter E. Williams puts it: “The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do. And that is to destroy the black family.” Hoover Institution Fellow Thomas Sowell concurs: “The black family, which had survived centuries of slavery and discrimination, began rapidly disintegrating in the liberal welfare state that subsidized unwed pregnancy and changed welfare from an emergency rescue to a way of life.”

How about something in your own words, Ed? I'll read this later anyway, gotta pick up a grandkid from a government run school (oh, the horror, the poor child, this is child abuse)

No worries, the kids teacher is in the union I'm sure!!

 

[Dragonlady]

The American PEOPLE aren't the richest in the world. There are more American billionaires and large multi-nationals than any other countries because Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

47% of Americans have so little income that they don't pay income tax and the receive government assistance. You can't claim on one hand that Americans are the richest people in the world when nearly half the population is on welfare.

Most of the wealth owned by Americans, meaning more than 93%, is owned by the top 20% of corporations and individuals. The remaining wealth, about 6%, is controlled by the remaining 80%. Even there, the bottom three groups are mostly in negative numbers when it comes to assets and liabilities

Even a dumb liberal like me knows that the everyday American is not among the richest workers in the world. Not when half the people in the nation qualify for welfare.

 

[boedicca]

And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.

Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

too stupid of course since Gates, Jobs, and Ford for example got rich by selling to everyone!! The poor have to have Iphone wealth, computer wealth, and car wealth before Gates, Jobs, and Ford can make money!!

Henry Ford made $1.49 a car per car sold. Where do you think the rest of the money went in a free economy!!

Isn't thinking fun???

 

[Underhill]

And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.

Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.

Yes, the leftovers of American society are certainly nicer here than in Zimbabwe.

Give it time. At the rate we are going that will change quickly.

Our society is on a downward path and the poor are definitely getting poorer (as is the middle classes). So in another few decades the picture may not be so rosy for Americas poor.

Then again, I have an unemployed friend living in a 3 room apartment with his 2 daughters. He's got a big TV he can't afford to watch (leftovers from his former working life). A pay as you go cell phone his mom pays for, and food stamps.

He may be better off than those African poor, but I'm betting he doesn't see his position as lucky.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Our society is on a downward path and the poor are definitely getting poorer (as is the middle classes). So in another few decades the picture may not be so rosy for Americas poor.

What Washington really does - The Washington Post

Recently, Ron Haskins of the Brookings Institution, a Washington think tank, testified before the House Budget Committee on the growth of the 10-largest “means tested” federal programs that serve people who qualify by various definitions of poverty.


Here’s what Haskins reported: From 1980 to 2011, annual spending on these programs grew from $126 billion to $626 billion (all figures in inflation-adjusted “2011 dollars”); dividing this by the number of people below the government poverty line, spending went from $4,300 per poor person in 1980 to $13,000 in 2011. In 1962, spending per person in poverty was $516.


Haskins’s list includes Medicaid, food stamps (now called the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP), the earned-income tax credit (a wage subsidy for some low-income workers), and Pell Grants. There are other, smaller programs dedicated to the poor. A report from the Congressional Research Service estimated the total number at 83; Haskins puts the additional spending on programs below the 10 largest at about $210 billion. The total of all programs for the poor exceeds $800 billion.

To be sure, some spending reflects the effects of the Great Recession. But most doesn’t. As Haskins shows, spending on the poor has increased steadily for decades. Consider food stamps. There are now about 45 million Americans receiving an average of $287 a month in food stamps, up from 26 million in 2007, according to a new Congressional Budget Office report. But the number in 2007, when the economy was healthy, was roughly 50 percent higher than in 2001.

And programs for the poor pale beside middle-class transfers. The giants here are Social Security at $725 billion in 2011 and Medicare at $560 billion. Combine all this spending -- programs for the poor, Social Security and Medicare — and the total is nearly $2.1 trillion. That was about 60 percent of 2011 non-interest federal spending of $3.4 trillion.

 

[Toronado3800]

And yet, the poor in America who don't pay taxes live in abodes with indoor plumbing, HVAC, refrigeration, microwaves, big screen TVs, computers, and also own cellphones and cars.

Compare them to The Poor in Zimbabwe.

Pretty cool this America of the New Deal. I took my kid to school today w/o a body guard and with no fear of being kidnapped for ransom by the underclass!

Go America! I agree we have been kicking but!

 

[Toronado3800]

Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

too stupid of course since Gates, Jobs, and Ford for example got rich by selling to everyone!! The poor have to have Iphone wealth, computer wealth, and car wealth before Gates, Jobs, and Ford can make money!!

Henry Ford made $1.49 a car per car sold. Where do you think the rest of the money went in a free economy!!

Isn't thinking fun???

Thank you for that speech in favor.of bottom up economics. Be nice so I don't have to be embarasssed when we agree.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Friedman's economic theories create wealth at the expense of the middle class and the poor.

too stupid of course since Gates, Jobs, and Ford for example got rich by selling to everyone!! The poor have to have Iphone wealth, computer wealth, and car wealth before Gates, Jobs, and Ford can make money!!

Henry Ford made $1.49 a car per car sold. Where do you think the rest of the money went in a free economy!!

Isn't thinking fun???

Thank you for that speech in favor.of bottom up economics. Be nice so I don't have to be embarasssed when we agree.

bottom up?? Its more like flood down as opposed to trickle down.

 

[emilynghiem]

there are plenty of nonprofits already doing similar work,

Are you a commie pinko?? Profit is beauty and truth. Without profit we have no idea on earth where to invest our scarce resources.

Did you ever see what a soviet not for profit car looked like? Did you ever wonder why the Chinese not for profit economy slowly starved 60million to death, and why everyone suddenly got rich when they switched to for profit capitalism.

IF you lack the IQ to understand capitalism you lack the IQ to have an opinion. Sorry

Dear Ed: You need to get whatever image out of your head you are projecting, or you are never going to hear what I am saying. I AGREE with you that nonprofit/charities should be run as BUSINESSES and be self-sufficient and work with RENEWABLE Sustainable income, as with investors who make money passively off their rental property income.

What I'm talking about it is the SPIRIT of service to the community being the nonprofit part, not the actual structure which I agree should be set up and run as a self-sustaining BUSINESS which DOES generate or save more money than it spends. I have no argument with you, yet you keep trying to pick one by picking at my words to get something out of it that is NOT what I mean.

For example, there ARE insurance companies which make money and do not lose money, but they are operated for SERVICE and not to make "big salaries" for their owners.
Amica (sp?) is one such Christian nonprofit insurance company that has a reputable business; and the USAA insurance company which services Military families testified before Congress as a shining example of companies that already provide care WITHOUT needing any federal legislation. So this is proof that the FREE MARKET can be used to SERVE people WITHOUT depending on govt regulation to try to "micromanage" their operations/policies.

Ed, it is funny that you claim to be arguing for capitalism, but when I bring up examples of FREE MARKET and FREE ENTERPRISE solutions (whether people CHOOSE to operate as a business, church, school, nonprofit or whatever) you seem to push for Dependence on Govt.
Like Depending on govt to regulate welfare by enforcing requirements to work, INSTEAD of shifting the whole system to microlending where people either go to work or school to earn or work off credits, which again can be done either privately or publicly, through schools or businesses and does not have to depend solely on govt.

Ed if I proposed that the liberal/socialist type Parties take on responsibility for setting up, funding and managing schools/health care/welfare systems to support all the people voting for that, would you freak out and want this to be legislated through Govt instead of shifting it to the Parties who believe in supporting people socially and financially while training them to become independent? Does it scare you to think that work could be done through the private sector, based on the capitalist/free enterprise system of schools needing to make money in order to develop their programs and pay their staff?

Does it freak you out, Ed, that as a liberal Democrat I DO believe in switching govt and charity programs to BUSINESS models based on free enterprise so they run efficiently?

Or are you having such a hard time believing you and I could actually AGREE on using business models that you keep picking at my words by projecting objections in your head?

I AGREE with you more than you seem to recognize (unless you are the one pushing for dependency on govt while I am the one pushing for free market solutions, and we are talking past each other for that reason).