How do we stop "the poor" from being so problematic?

[danielpalos]

There is no unemployment Only underpayment. It is a simple capital concept.

I actually asked HOW truer capitalism doesn't have unemployment. If all you were going to do was restate the sentence that I'm asking you to clarify, then why bother responding at all?

I thought it was a self-evident truth, that unemployment only happens due to underpayment.

I don't know many people who would turn down a multimillion dollar sign-on bonus, if that is what it took to get them some work.

Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. Realistically, though, you could say that about any system, or indeed about the natural state of human existence. There's always some piece of work to be done that would make life better for someone, but whether or not there's some available reward great enough to motivate any given individual to perform that task is another story.

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The right wing, or republican politicians? Not same same.

Is there much difference? There is no drug war clause in the Republican Doctrine.

The difference is simple. Your average right winger is socially and fiscally conservative and generally nationalistic. Your average republican politician is socially conservative, fiscally liberal (or at least Keynesian) and generally globalist.

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

 

[danielpalos]

Is there much difference? There is no drug war clause in the Republican Doctrine.

The difference is simple. Your average right winger is socially and fiscally conservative and generally nationalistic. Your average republican politician is socially conservative, fiscally liberal (or at least Keynesian) and generally globalist.

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Did we get to work camps and ovens yet?

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

I actually asked HOW truer capitalism doesn't have unemployment. If all you were going to do was restate the sentence that I'm asking you to clarify, then why bother responding at all?

I thought it was a self-evident truth, that unemployment only happens due to underpayment.

I don't know many people who would turn down a multimillion dollar sign-on bonus, if that is what it took to get them some work.

Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. Realistically, though, you could say that about any system, or indeed about the natural state of human existence. There's always some piece of work to be done that would make life better for someone, but whether or not there's some available reward great enough to motivate any given individual to perform that task is another story.

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

The difference is simple. Your average right winger is socially and fiscally conservative and generally nationalistic. Your average republican politician is socially conservative, fiscally liberal (or at least Keynesian) and generally globalist.

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

The republican politicians are too inept, spineless and divided to actually cut any spending. That doesn't mean that the real people comprising the right wing don't want significant reductions in government spending. They're just convinced enough that tax cuts would improve the economy that, even if the cuts don't happen, most right wingers are content to see the tax cuts happen and then hope that either the reduced revenue pressures the government into cutting spending down the road or that the expected economic upturn allows us to grow out of the deficit.

Granted, the typical right wing view has its severe logical holes, but so does the left. Most blatantly, a lot of right wingers refuse to even consider touching military spending, and a lot of left wingers refuse to consider touching social security. When it comes to economics, you can't really take any political wing or party seriously. By and large, political demographics are defined by their ideologies and moral values, and, unfortunately for the human desire for the world to conform to emotional preconceptions, economics doesn't seem to have any respect for morals or ideology.

 

[danielpalos]

I thought it was a self-evident truth, that unemployment only happens due to underpayment.

I don't know many people who would turn down a multimillion dollar sign-on bonus, if that is what it took to get them some work.

Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. Realistically, though, you could say that about any system, or indeed about the natural state of human existence. There's always some piece of work to be done that would make life better for someone, but whether or not there's some available reward great enough to motivate any given individual to perform that task is another story.

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

 

[Not2BSubjugated]

Gotcha, I see what you're saying now. Realistically, though, you could say that about any system, or indeed about the natural state of human existence. There's always some piece of work to be done that would make life better for someone, but whether or not there's some available reward great enough to motivate any given individual to perform that task is another story.

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

In all fairness, the wars on crime, drugs, and terror are every bit as valid as the war on poverty in terms of promoting the general welfare. Positive sounding and poorly implemented economic black holes.

 

[Flopper]

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

The republican politicians are too inept, spineless and divided to actually cut any spending. That doesn't mean that the real people comprising the right wing don't want significant reductions in government spending. They're just convinced enough that tax cuts would improve the economy that, even if the cuts don't happen, most right wingers are content to see the tax cuts happen and then hope that either the reduced revenue pressures the government into cutting spending down the road or that the expected economic upturn allows us to grow out of the deficit.

Granted, the typical right wing view has its severe logical holes, but so does the left. Most blatantly, a lot of right wingers refuse to even consider touching military spending, and a lot of left wingers refuse to consider touching social security. When it comes to economics, you can't really take any political wing or party seriously. By and large, political demographics are defined by their ideologies and moral values, and, unfortunately for the human desire for the world to conform to emotional preconceptions, economics doesn't seem to have any respect for morals or ideology.

The effect of tax cuts on the economy usually last only till investors see the large deficits that result because most tax cuts don't pay for themselves without large cuts in spending which rarely happens. Congress and the administration will make much ado about reforming this, that, and the other but it won't offset the costs of building walls around the country, infrastructure spending, the war on terror, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, and other pressing needs.

 

[koshergrl]

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

The republican politicians are too inept, spineless and divided to actually cut any spending. That doesn't mean that the real people comprising the right wing don't want significant reductions in government spending. They're just convinced enough that tax cuts would improve the economy that, even if the cuts don't happen, most right wingers are content to see the tax cuts happen and then hope that either the reduced revenue pressures the government into cutting spending down the road or that the expected economic upturn allows us to grow out of the deficit.

Granted, the typical right wing view has its severe logical holes, but so does the left. Most blatantly, a lot of right wingers refuse to even consider touching military spending, and a lot of left wingers refuse to consider touching social security. When it comes to economics, you can't really take any political wing or party seriously. By and large, political demographics are defined by their ideologies and moral values, and, unfortunately for the human desire for the world to conform to emotional preconceptions, economics doesn't seem to have any respect for morals or ideology.

The effect of tax cuts on the economy usually last only till investors see the large deficits that result because most tax cuts don't pay for themselves without large cuts in spending which rarely happens. Congress and the administration will make much ado about reforming this, that, and the other but it won't offset the costs of building walls around the country, infrastructure spending, the war on terror, the opioid epidemic, healthcare, and other pressing needs.

Why don't you give us an example of that happening?
Cite and source.

 

[Flopper]

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

In all fairness, the wars on crime, drugs, and terror are every bit as valid as the war on poverty in terms of promoting the general welfare. Positive sounding and poorly implemented economic black holes.

Those are not real wars in any sense of the word. They are social problems that we don't how to address. IMHO, these problems will be with us for a long time.

 

[danielpalos]

The argument I have with the right wing is that they don't believe the poor are worth equal protection of the law, under any form of Capitalism.

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

In all fairness, the wars on crime, drugs, and terror are every bit as valid as the war on poverty in terms of promoting the general welfare. Positive sounding and poorly implemented economic black holes.

No, they aren't. We have a Second Amendment.

 

[koshergrl]

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

In all fairness, the wars on crime, drugs, and terror are every bit as valid as the war on poverty in terms of promoting the general welfare. Positive sounding and poorly implemented economic black holes.

Those are not real wars in any sense of the word. They are social problems that we don't how to address. IMHO, these problems will be with us for a long time.

Especially if we continue to promote and subsidize the lifestyle that produces them.

 

[koshergrl]

The difference is simple. Your average right winger is socially and fiscally conservative and generally nationalistic. Your average republican politician is socially conservative, fiscally liberal (or at least Keynesian) and generally globalist.

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

Translation from useful idiotspeak:

"Leftwingers deny the reality of economics and pretend high taxes and socialism improve the economy. It's a lie. We all know it's a lie. But we will continue to squawk the lie because, as useful idiots, that is our only purpose in life."

 

[danielpalos]

The right wing had no problem financing tax cuts.

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

Translation from useful idiotspeak:

"Leftwingers deny the reality of economics and pretend high taxes and socialism improve the economy. It's a lie. We all know it's a lie. But we will continue to squawk the lie because, as useful idiots, that is our only purpose in life."

Capitalism died in 1929. The rich already got bailed out last time. Corporate welfare even pays multimillion dollar bonuses, but the right wing only complains about the poor getting steak and lobster on their ebt cards.

 

[sealybobo]

Now you're painting all conservatives being on board with the extremists. Most right wingers, at least in this country, believe in universalism and individualism. The fact that the people at the bottom of the social hierarchy tend to get shit on isn't unique to capitalism, it's a function of the human condition.

They only pay lip service. Our alleged wars on crime, drugs, and terror are simple socialism on a national, and international basis.

Personally, I agree with that take, and I'd add to that list the war on poverty, which ultimately boils down to redistributive coddling and generally puts zero effort to actually upwardly mobilizing anyone, and all effort into making people as comfortable as possible in pseudo-impoverished stasis.

That said, it's not a desire for socialistic policy that makes right wingers support the wars on crime and drugs, but rather social conservatism that, insofar as right wingers do support that war, simply outweighs their desire for decentralized economics. Most people that support these wars pay little consideration to the economic aspects of them at all.

With the war on terror, it's just simple threat perception. People tend to get hawkish when they perceive a threat to their values. Right wingers, right or wrong, tend to perceive Islamic terror to be the greatest currently active threat to those values and, insofar as they support the war on terror, simply place more importance on the protection of those values than on the economic implications of the implementation of that defense.

Providing for the general welfare is in our Constitution, providing for the general warfare is not.

In all fairness, the wars on crime, drugs, and terror are every bit as valid as the war on poverty in terms of promoting the general welfare. Positive sounding and poorly implemented economic black holes.

Those are not real wars in any sense of the word. They are social problems that we don't how to address. IMHO, these problems will be with us for a long time.

Very simple fix to wealth inequality. The 80% of the poor who aren’t good citizens because they don’t vote need to show up and vote every two years. If they did then ceos wouldn’t make $30 million while paying $15 hr. The poor would be able to raise a family on one 40 hr a week job.

The rich vote and have convinced the poor voting doesn’t matter so I’m done advocating for the poor. Don’t vote don’t matter. Bad citizens.

 

[Papageorgio]

Yeah, when I say fiscally conservative, I mean generally opposed to wealth redistribution. Tax cuts are directly in line with this motive.

Granted, this only refers to the portion of the right wing spectrum where you'd find most American conservatives. I get that fascists are generally socialists.

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

Translation from useful idiotspeak:

"Leftwingers deny the reality of economics and pretend high taxes and socialism improve the economy. It's a lie. We all know it's a lie. But we will continue to squawk the lie because, as useful idiots, that is our only purpose in life."

Capitalism died in 1929. The rich already got bailed out last time. Corporate welfare even pays multimillion dollar bonuses, but the right wing only complains about the poor getting steak and lobster on their ebt cards.

Lol! You are so funny, way off but funny. Alfred thanks you for your amusement.

 

[deanrd]

What's the GOP plan? Starve them? Kill them? Sterilize them? What?

The Donald would want them to actually work for a living, the democrats and most republicans do not want to point out the fact they have dramatically lower IQs and savage behavioral issues incompatible with Western society. Indeed the humane thing is to sterilized them but I have no problem using more direct methods to stop the attack on humanity.

Most of them by far vote GOP.

 

[sealybobo]

I think the right wing is simply clueless and Causeless; and have nothing but socialism on a national basis.

Financing tax cuts is simple income redistribution.

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

Translation from useful idiotspeak:

"Leftwingers deny the reality of economics and pretend high taxes and socialism improve the economy. It's a lie. We all know it's a lie. But we will continue to squawk the lie because, as useful idiots, that is our only purpose in life."

Capitalism died in 1929. The rich already got bailed out last time. Corporate welfare even pays multimillion dollar bonuses, but the right wing only complains about the poor getting steak and lobster on their ebt cards.

Lol! You are so funny, way off but funny. Alfred thanks you for your amusement.

There is some truth to the liberal position but our way did not win the election.

We ran on the idea that corporate welfare was the problem not welfare to the poor and we lost the election so the focus is going to be on welfare abuse from the poor. Get a job and get off the welfare. I hope th gop changes welfare so you have to work for the help.

And don’t let guys like my 50 year old drunk buddy Jeff get foodstamps. That’s just more money at the horse tracks. He needs a probation officer and drug testing. I’m sorry but guys like him shouldn’t qualify for foodstamps. Or give him bread peanut butter and oatmeal

 

[Papageorgio]

Eh, I fail to see how letting someone keep the wealth they create is redistribution of anything.

Though, I do wonder sometimes if the left and the right are just talking past each other on this point. Perhaps you mean something different by redistribution.

When right wingers say they're opposed to redistribution of wealth, what they mean is that they are opposed to the government taking wealth created by one entity and awarding it to another. Thus, tax cuts don't qualify. Tax cuts are the government refraining from taking that wealth altogether, which necessarily eliminates the possibility of that wealth being redistributed.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about economics. The tax cuts were financed and added to the debt; there were no cuts in spending except for token amounts from the poor; after the rich got richer faster.

Translation from useful idiotspeak:

"Leftwingers deny the reality of economics and pretend high taxes and socialism improve the economy. It's a lie. We all know it's a lie. But we will continue to squawk the lie because, as useful idiots, that is our only purpose in life."

Capitalism died in 1929. The rich already got bailed out last time. Corporate welfare even pays multimillion dollar bonuses, but the right wing only complains about the poor getting steak and lobster on their ebt cards.

Lol! You are so funny, way off but funny. Alfred thanks you for your amusement.

There is some truth to the liberal position but our way did not win the election.

We ran on the idea that corporate welfare was the problem not welfare to the poor and we lost the election so the focus is going to be on welfare abuse from the poor. Get a job and get off the welfare. I hope th gop changes welfare so you have to work for the help.

And don’t let guys like my 50 year old drunk buddy Jeff get foodstamps. That’s just more money at the horse tracks. He needs a probation officer and drug testing. I’m sorry but guys like him shouldn’t qualify for foodstamps. Or give him bread peanut butter and oatmeal

I’m all for ending corporate welfare, neither party will do that, it is just not a good idea for the politicians to cut off those that donate so much.

I am all for welfare, it should be a stepping stone and temporary help for those that really need it.