GOP turning "American helping American" into Socialism - Is that a national scandal?

[rdean]

Spoonman, you know better. Really, dude, you made me sad.

Privatizing Social Security takes it out of the government's hands. That means that a private company makes decisions for you and you can't vote that company out, you can't do anything. You have NO representation.

Further, the companies make money from the investments. They charge the SS accounts investment fees, plus with the amount of stock they can buy using every working American's money they can manipulate the stock market - cheat, in other words, and that's highly illegal.

But the biggest fail with privatization comes with the inevitable - within the next 40 years there will be another September 2008, another October 1929. Do you honestly think that level of risk is something old people should be forced into?

plutocracy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

Plutocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's the right wing goal. For some reason, Republicans trust corporations with a profit motive over the government we elect into office and at the same time screaming "we want freedom". Why? So they can give it away to corporations? At least with our government, you can vote people into and out of office. Once corporations are in charge, they will never let go. Only as long as we have a government we elect into office will we have even a sliver of freedom.

As you may have read, I am a big believer that we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

But I never ever get a right wing wack job on here to contest that we live in a plutocracy.
Either they don't know what it is. Or they don't care. Or they agree and don't want to admit it. And I see no way to change it without a strong group of populists coming forward to bring about change. And that ain't happening. Liz Warren and Bernie can't do it by themselves.

But at least we live in a nice plutocracy. So far.

When you have people who think communism, fascism, socialism and Marxism are all the same thing, who knows what they actually know?

 

[rdean]

States shouldn't "train" anyone. This is brought out by the liberal belief that college is the end all be all of everything. it's not.

It's embarrassing that someone in America would diss higher education.

People like that need to get out of the way of the 21st Century.

No one "disses" higher education. We dis government run brainwashing mills.

Which you just happen to call colleges and Universities.

 

[rdean]

plutocracy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

That's the right wing goal. For some reason, Republicans trust corporations with a profit motive over the government we elect into office and at the same time screaming "we want freedom". Why? So they can give it away to corporations? At least with our government, you can vote people into and out of office. Once corporations are in charge, they will never let go. Only as long as we have a government we elect into office will we have even a sliver of freedom.

As you may have read, I am a big believer that we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

But I never ever get a right wing wack job on here to contest that we live in a plutocracy.
Either they don't know what it is. Or they don't care. Or they agree and don't want to admit it. And I see no way to change it without a strong group of populists coming forward to bring about change. And that ain't happening. Liz Warren and Bernie can't do it by themselves.

But at least we live in a nice plutocracy. So far.

The term is absolutely meaningless. Any country that has rich people could be labeled a "plutocracy." Dims like you throw it around because you think it makes you sound sophisticated and smart, and because it's a cheap shot at the rich. Can you name a single country that isn't ruled by rich people? Can you post a definition of the term that distinguishes countries that are plutocracies from those that aren't?

Some people inherited their money. Some got it from shaky underhanded deals. Some worked hard and played by the rules. Just having money doesn't make them "special".

 

[Harry Dresden]

my gawd, we need to be saved not only from this government but by people in this country like rdean

the most despicable human being I've ever seen who doesn't care how many lies he make up about you the people who are Republican...

I've paid into welfare and SS for over 40 years now ...yet we still get accused of these disgusting lies BY people who are in the Democrat party and ALL FOR FUCKING politics and their AGENDAS
it's hard to admit some of our own fellow countrymen and women are our enemy, but here it is right before our eyes

You "paid into welfare" eh? How does that work? You mean you paid your Federal Income taxes? Well hell, you ought to get a medal. Right?

And why is it so hard to admit that fellow citizens are enemies. I see you work hard every day to make someone on here your enemy. And you are surprised? Why? You ought to be glad. Your strategy is working. You and I would definitely be enemies in person. So what?
You root for things that would be counter productive to me and my family. You think people like me will lay down and let that shit happen? No way. And if I make a few enemies defending my family, I can live with that. And not even bitch about it. Just life in America today.

kinda like the way both sides are looking at things...."you dont think like me ...so you must be my enemy".....thats a far left and right mantra.....and they are doing the most yelling right now bringing down both parties....keep everyone separated,and it aint getting any better....get rid of those on the "Far Sides" and this Country will bounce back...until then....

 

[rdean]

Still the right wingers won't address Blue State money pouring into Red Welfare States.

 

[WelfareTick]

Guns are protected as are indirect taxes. Income tax is a direct tax. Abolish all free trade agreements and return to using tariffs here in the US and you will see enough companies return here that jobs will return. Once the economy is back in place there will be plenty of charity to go around. As was the case in the early 20th century before the Great Depression.

That's exactly what they pushed for in 1929. The 1930s were simply wonderful because of tariffs..... right?

No, if you enact protectionist policies (high tariffs on imports), you will absolutely ruin this economy. Millions of jobs will be lost.

With high tariffs, yes. We don't have to get radical with protectionism. After 85 years' worth of assorted trade programs the government can see what does and does not work

You're delusional if you think politicians give a hoot about what works and what doesn't work. Economics tells you that tariffs only hurt consumers for the benefit of a small minority of wage earners. The are a negative on the whole, no matter where they are set.

 

[WelfareTick]

Still the right wingers won't address Blue State money pouring into Red Welfare States.

How should they address it, by ending the welfare programs responsible for it?

 

[WelfareTick]

As you may have read, I am a big believer that we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

But I never ever get a right wing wack job on here to contest that we live in a plutocracy.
Either they don't know what it is. Or they don't care. Or they agree and don't want to admit it. And I see no way to change it without a strong group of populists coming forward to bring about change. And that ain't happening. Liz Warren and Bernie can't do it by themselves.

But at least we live in a nice plutocracy. So far.

The term is absolutely meaningless. Any country that has rich people could be labeled a "plutocracy." Dims like you throw it around because you think it makes you sound sophisticated and smart, and because it's a cheap shot at the rich. Can you name a single country that isn't ruled by rich people? Can you post a definition of the term that distinguishes countries that are plutocracies from those that aren't?

Some people inherited their money. Some got it from shaky underhanded deals. Some worked hard and played by the rules. Just having money doesn't make them "special".

No one ever said it did. The question is: does the mere fact that a country has rich people make it a plutocracy? Liberals have never managed to show what the distinction is between a so-called "plutocracy" and an ordinary country with rich people.

 

[Harry Dresden]

States shouldn't "train" anyone. This is brought out by the liberal belief that college is the end all be all of everything. it's not.

It's embarrassing that someone in America would diss higher education.

People like that need to get out of the way of the 21st Century.

Truly. I don't get it. This is where the GOP and business are parting ways. Republicans are afraid that immigrants will take their jobs. Business wants immigrants with degrees because they can't find the skills in Red States. So Republicans go to Blue States in an effort to entice skilled workers. How does this save Republican jobs?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry launches ad campaign to poach jobs from New York, Connecticut, California



Republicans are getting it from two sides. Immigrants with degrees and skilled workers from Blue States.

Dean a hell of a lot of the businesses leaving my State are not doing it because Rick Perry pursued them....they are doing it because of the taxes and regulations California imposes on them.....and they have been leaving long before Perry came here.....

 

[WelfareTick]

It's embarrassing that someone in America would diss higher education.

People like that need to get out of the way of the 21st Century.

No one "disses" higher education. We dis government run brainwashing mills.

Which you just happen to call colleges and Universities.

Because that's what they are. Government always takes over the business of education so it can brainwash future generations with the dogma that justifies its existence.

 

[Harry Dresden]

privatization is still SS, it's not getting rid of it

Spoonman, you know better. Really, dude, you made me sad.

Privatizing Social Security takes it out of the government's hands. That means that a private company makes decisions for you and you can't vote that company out, you can't do anything. You have NO representation.

Further, the companies make money from the investments. They charge the SS accounts investment fees, plus with the amount of stock they can buy using every working American's money they can manipulate the stock market - cheat, in other words, and that's highly illegal.

But the biggest fail with privatization comes with the inevitable - within the next 40 years there will be another September 2008, another October 1929. Do you honestly think that level of risk is something old people should be forced into?

plutocracy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

Plutocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's the right wing goal. For some reason, Republicans trust corporations with a profit motive over the government we elect into office and at the same time screaming "we want freedom". Why? So they can give it away to corporations? At least with our government, you can vote people into and out of office. Once corporations are in charge, they will never let go. Only as long as we have a government we elect into office will we have even a sliver of freedom.

this includes Democrat Millionaires and Billionaires too Dean.....i know they have told you that they have your best interest at heart...and of course,since you never question any of these people you just went right along with them....

 

[Iceweasel]

The term is absolutely meaningless. Any country that has rich people could be labeled a "plutocracy." Dims like you throw it around because you think it makes you sound sophisticated and smart, and because it's a cheap shot at the rich. Can you name a single country that isn't ruled by rich people? Can you post a definition of the term that distinguishes countries that are plutocracies from those that aren't?

Some people inherited their money. Some got it from shaky underhanded deals. Some worked hard and played by the rules. Just having money doesn't make them "special".

No one ever said it did. The question is: does the mere fact that a country has rich people make it a plutocracy? Liberals have never managed to show what the distinction is between a so-called "plutocracy" and an ordinary country with rich people.

As far as I can tell, being rich only bothers them if it's a Republican.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Spoonman, you know better. Really, dude, you made me sad.

Privatizing Social Security takes it out of the government's hands. That means that a private company makes decisions for you and you can't vote that company out, you can't do anything. You have NO representation.

Further, the companies make money from the investments. They charge the SS accounts investment fees, plus with the amount of stock they can buy using every working American's money they can manipulate the stock market - cheat, in other words, and that's highly illegal.

But the biggest fail with privatization comes with the inevitable - within the next 40 years there will be another September 2008, another October 1929. Do you honestly think that level of risk is something old people should be forced into?

plutocracy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

Plutocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's the right wing goal. For some reason, Republicans trust corporations with a profit motive over the government we elect into office and at the same time screaming "we want freedom". Why? So they can give it away to corporations? At least with our government, you can vote people into and out of office. Once corporations are in charge, they will never let go. Only as long as we have a government we elect into office will we have even a sliver of freedom.

As you may have read, I am a big believer that we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

But I never ever get a right wing wack job on here to contest that we live in a plutocracy.
Either they don't know what it is. Or they don't care. Or they agree and don't want to admit it. And I see no way to change it without a strong group of populists coming forward to bring about change. And that ain't happening. Liz Warren and Bernie can't do it by themselves.

But at least we live in a nice plutocracy. So far.

the only people right now who are doing well in my State is where the rich people live....i wonder why?....we have approx 15 counties with over 10% Unemployment....and around another 15 that are still over the States 8.7% to 10%.....Imperial County is over 20%....all the Counties that are under 6% are where the money is....so is it any different when Democrats are the majority?....

 

[Claudette]

The GOP leadership has worked tirelessly to make their base believe American helping American is "socialism" and should be stopped. The very people helped by Social Security and Medicare believe getting government help is the road to disaster for this country. The GOP's misinformation techniques have worked so well, their base doesn't even understand that Medicare and Social Security are government programs and getting rid of government programs means disaster for them.

Republicans say we should look at Blue States to understand how all the welfare has hurt those states. Only the dollar drain from Blue States is going to Red States. The amount of money difference Red States receive from Blue States pales in comparison to what those in Blue States who are on welfare receive and is staggering.

If Red States were so self sufficient, they wouldn't be working overtime trying to lure Blue State workers to their states. They would train their own people. Only that would be (gasp) "socialism".

People don't want charity. Republicans insist they are better people because they imagine they give more to charity. Remember that story Paul Ryan plagiarized? About the little boy who did't want to be given school lunch? Well that's the thing. A little charity does nothing. Without the drain of money from Blue States to Red States, Blue States would have balanced budgets and would still be helping Blue State Citizens. It's because of that aid Blue States are able to give to their citizens that Red States are able to bleed money from those Blue States who earned it.

Perhaps we need some tough love and stop funding Red States. The only problem with that is the GOP leadership would simply let their middle class and poor die. We know that from the millions left off Medicare Expansion. That will probably cost 10,000 deaths a year in Red States.

LMAO What a load of horseshit.

Of course Americans should help Americans. When Americans CHOOSE to help Americans.

Its called charity.

Unfortunately the Govt of America has decided that all taxpayers should be forced to take care of others. We owe the Dems for this bullshit as there is no charity in the constitution. Just a bunch of Clowns looking for votes who decided to rewite the Constitution to make it happen.

 

[Iceweasel]

Liberals define charity as how much of your money they can spend.

 

[Harry Dresden]

plutocracy noun \plü-ˈtä-krə-sē\

: government by the richest people

: a country that is ruled by the richest people

Plutocracy - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

That's the right wing goal. For some reason, Republicans trust corporations with a profit motive over the government we elect into office and at the same time screaming "we want freedom". Why? So they can give it away to corporations? At least with our government, you can vote people into and out of office. Once corporations are in charge, they will never let go. Only as long as we have a government we elect into office will we have even a sliver of freedom.

As you may have read, I am a big believer that we live in a plutocracy. Government of the rich, by the rich, for the rich.

But I never ever get a right wing wack job on here to contest that we live in a plutocracy.
Either they don't know what it is. Or they don't care. Or they agree and don't want to admit it. And I see no way to change it without a strong group of populists coming forward to bring about change. And that ain't happening. Liz Warren and Bernie can't do it by themselves.

But at least we live in a nice plutocracy. So far.

When you have people who think communism, fascism, socialism and Marxism are all the same thing, who knows what they actually know?

when you have people who think Republicans are the culprits for every thing negative that goes on in this Country,and will not Question their own Party no matter what they do or say.....you have to wonder.....what do they actually know?....Obsession is a mental disorder.....

 

[Stephanie]

Some people inherited their money. Some got it from shaky underhanded deals. Some worked hard and played by the rules. Just having money doesn't make them "special".

No one ever said it did. The question is: does the mere fact that a country has rich people make it a plutocracy? Liberals have never managed to show what the distinction is between a so-called "plutocracy" and an ordinary country with rich people.

As far as I can tell, being rich only bothers them if it's a Republican.

yep, they have no problems voting for them though
Seven out the top ten richest in congress? DEMOCRATS
The 50 Richest Members of Congress — 112th : Roll Call

 

[Harry Dresden]

Some people inherited their money. Some got it from shaky underhanded deals. Some worked hard and played by the rules. Just having money doesn't make them "special".

No one ever said it did. The question is: does the mere fact that a country has rich people make it a plutocracy? Liberals have never managed to show what the distinction is between a so-called "plutocracy" and an ordinary country with rich people.

As far as I can tell, being rich only bothers them if it's a Republican.

thats because the rich Democrats tell them...."hey we are the good rich people,we would give up our wealth for you people.....seriously....we have your backs".....its when they leave the room when the laughing starts....

 

[Stephanie]

thats because the rich Democrats tell them...."hey we are the good rich people,we would give up our wealth for you people....

yep, and deanie is one who they have reeled in, hook line and stinker and he doesn't mind being a useful tool for them either....they play them like a fiddle

sad for us and our country

 

[DrDoomNGloom]

Is that what Red States do to Blue States?

USMB right wingers falsely claim this has been debunked, but Politifact says otherwise.

Ah, if you only had a brain.

you do realize that is because most of those states have lower populations, therefore collect less taxes. you do realize those dollars are not for welfare and entitlements but to maintain roadways and for agriculture.

who am I kidding, you don't realize a thing

U.S. Population by State, 1790 to 2012 | Infoplease.com

Dear Mr. Braindead. Do some research before you open your piehole. Thanks.

He was right, you don't realize a thing ...

This red-blue split may be partly explained by the difference between urban and rural states. Red states are more likely to be rural, and rural states were more likely to receive more federal spending than they paid in taxes in 2010. Among predominantly rural states, 81 percent received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. In contrast, 44 percent of urban states received more federal spending than they paid in taxes. Rural states, on average, received $1.40 in federal spending for every tax dollar paid; urban states, on average, received $1.10. (Rural states are defined as states whose urban population rate is below the national average of 79 percent.)

Most Red States Take More Money From Washington Than They Put In | Mother Jones