So you love socialism ?????

[bripat9643]

Commerce does not include forcing automobile companies to install airbags in their cars or housing developers how many electrical outlets they have to put in a room.

It does now, and for good reasons, generally. Governments regulating capitalism isn't a new thing. It's the cost of doing business here. You use our courts, our roads, our schools to train up your workers, you follow our regulations.

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

 

[peach174]

liberals then are the complete opposite of the kind of liberals we have now. The liberals then believed in free enterprise. Liberals now are all communists.

Your dogma is utterly boring. I am a liberal capitalist. Capitalists know that capitalism is not the answer to every question. As a liberal I also know the same is true of government.

Like most children, you lack anything like a reasonable approach to the world.

No one ever said capitalism is the answer to every question. It is, however, the answer to the question "what is the best way to produce goods and services for the populace?"

These days a liberal is indistinguishable from a communist.

You're still babbling.

Did Communists want to end Capitalism? Yes
Does American Democratic Socialists want to end Capitalism? Yes
About DSA
As we are unlikely to see an immediate end to capitalism tomorrow. This is their goal.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The type of "conclusion" that only an IDIOT would make....and, sure enough...bripat wants to claim the coveted label of being one of this forum's idiots.

That's exactly what he said. He doesn't care of the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government to regulate farming or manufacturing. He wants the government to do it anyway.

I don't care if they thought wooden teeth were good enough, we no longer do. What they did then was deal with reality, as our we but not you, wanting to live in a past that actually never existed.

 

[bripat9643]

[

What sort of taxes wouldn't interfere with trade?

Income taxes...

They weren't allowed then. And furthermore they do interfere with trade.

How? Oh right, they don't...

Puhleeze, our income tax code interferes with trade in 80,000 ways.

I'm not talking about the tax code, I'm talking about a tax on income affecting trade, which it does not.

So the tax code isn't a feature of the income tax?

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Commerce does not include forcing automobile companies to install airbags in their cars or housing developers how many electrical outlets they have to put in a room.

It does now, and for good reasons, generally. Governments regulating capitalism isn't a new thing. It's the cost of doing business here. You use our courts, our roads, our schools to train up your workers, you follow our regulations.

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

Why do you think, even if true, that such a thing matters?

 

[bripat9643]

All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The type of "conclusion" that only an IDIOT would make....and, sure enough...bripat wants to claim the coveted label of being one of this forum's idiots.

That's exactly what he said. He doesn't care of the Constitution doesn't permit the federal government to regulate farming or manufacturing. He wants the government to do it anyway.

I don't care if they thought wooden teeth were good enough, we no longer do. What they did then was deal with reality, as our we but not you, wanting to live in a past that actually never existed.

In other words, you don't give a crap what the Constitution says. Of course, we already knew that.

 

[bripat9643]

Commerce does not include forcing automobile companies to install airbags in their cars or housing developers how many electrical outlets they have to put in a room.

It does now, and for good reasons, generally. Governments regulating capitalism isn't a new thing. It's the cost of doing business here. You use our courts, our roads, our schools to train up your workers, you follow our regulations.

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

Why do you think, even if true, that such a thing matters?

ROFL! You just proved you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

 

[bripat9643]

No, the difference is that Sweden went only so far down the road to socialism and then retreated. It didn't expropriate private property or major industries or try to control prices. Venezuela did.

Good, so you are pro welfare state, which Sweden is.
This will resonance good with your crowd I bet...

No, I'm anti welfare state. However, a welfare state is far superior to the pure socialist model that Venezuela is trying to follow.

Nobody is wanting to emulate Venezuela

Then why are we doing the same type of social programs?

Social programs are not the biggest problem Venezuela has.

Right, socialism is.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Income taxes...

They weren't allowed then. And furthermore they do interfere with trade.

How? Oh right, they don't...

Puhleeze, our income tax code interferes with trade in 80,000 ways.

I'm not talking about the tax code, I'm talking about a tax on income affecting trade, which it does not.

So the tax code isn't a feature of the income tax?

Nope. An income tax is an income tax, and income taxes do not affect trade.

If the entire code for that is, "All income is taxed at 10%.", how does that or the tax affect trade? Oh right, it doesn't.

 

[bripat9643]

They weren't allowed then. And furthermore they do interfere with trade.

How? Oh right, they don't...

Puhleeze, our income tax code interferes with trade in 80,000 ways.

I'm not talking about the tax code, I'm talking about a tax on income affecting trade, which it does not.

So the tax code isn't a feature of the income tax?

Nope. An income tax is an income tax, and income taxes do not affect trade.

If the entire code for that is, "All income is taxed at 10%.", how does that or the tax affect trade? Oh right, it doesn't.

Are you actually claiming our income tax does not affect trade?

Any income tax has to determine how income is determined. There are always going to be countless rules for that, all of which will have an affect on trade.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

It does now, and for good reasons, generally. Governments regulating capitalism isn't a new thing. It's the cost of doing business here. You use our courts, our roads, our schools to train up your workers, you follow our regulations.

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

Why do you think, even if true, that such a thing matters?

ROFL! You just proved you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

I care to the point where it still makes sense, for a people living 230 years after it was written. It was only supposed to last for a generation, at least that's what they expected. It's on paper, not carved in stone, for a reason.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

How? Oh right, they don't...

Puhleeze, our income tax code interferes with trade in 80,000 ways.

I'm not talking about the tax code, I'm talking about a tax on income affecting trade, which it does not.

So the tax code isn't a feature of the income tax?

Nope. An income tax is an income tax, and income taxes do not affect trade.

If the entire code for that is, "All income is taxed at 10%.", how does that or the tax affect trade? Oh right, it doesn't.

Are you actually claiming our income tax does not affect trade?

You asked for a tax that does not affect trade, and I gave you one. Stop trying to put words in the mouths of others, you suck at it.

 

[peach174]

Good, so you are pro welfare state, which Sweden is.
This will resonance good with your crowd I bet...

No, I'm anti welfare state. However, a welfare state is far superior to the pure socialist model that Venezuela is trying to follow.

Nobody is wanting to emulate Venezuela

Then why are we doing the same type of social programs?

Social programs are not the biggest problem Venezuela has.

Social programs are a result of the problem Venezuela has, which is; GREED and LACK OF COMMON SENSE

The rich in Venezuela pushed the poor people aside and started leaching off of countries riches

As a result, poor have brought an extreme socialist into power that would widen the social programs in an extent that they cant be supported anymore

This is EFFECT and RESULT

Should be a good lesson for the Wall St Capitalists who are trying to do the same, leaching off of hard working Americans.......

The point is that it would have never happened in the 1st place if the Feds had not been in the housing business to begin with.

That is the problem with theses programs, it was meant for poor people to get homes and that is not a role our government should have ever been in.

Any one with common sense knows that low income people can not afford the maintenance on homes. That is how these social programs work.
Since Lib Dems know they don't have that money they can now add more government assistance for the upkeep of their new gov. homes.
Then guess who they vote for?

 

[Rustic]

Socialism is the dream of the delusional...
Lol

 

[thanatos144]

Sent from my SM-G386T1 using Tapatalk

 

[peach174]

The reasons are all bad. The worst one being that it violates the Constitution. All you're saying is that you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

Why do you think, even if true, that such a thing matters?

ROFL! You just proved you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

I care to the point where it still makes sense, for a people living 230 years after it was written. It was only supposed to last for a generation, at least that's what they expected. It's on paper, not carved in stone, for a reason.

They expected it to last forever if adhered to.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Socialism is the dream of the delusional...
Lol

The Swedes, Danes, British, etc. are delusional? You need a better mirror.

 

[Rustic]

Socialism is the dream of the delusional...
Lol

The Swedes, Danes, British, etc. are delusional? You need a better mirror.

Of course they are, the euro zone is all but dead...
Anyway, this "it takes a village' bullshit is as cowardly as it gets...

 

[PaintMyHouse]

The Constitution allows for regulated capitalism, as does common sense, as does capitalism itself which doesn't exist without government.

And yes, unlike you, I deal with the real world. We don't live in 1789 so what actually worked for them then doesn't matter a damn today. Since they expected us to recreate the government to fit our needs, exactly what they did, they wouldn't be dumb enough to say you shouldn't have an FAA just because we didn't have one. They would have said, dummies, we didn't have fucking planes you morons...

Wrong, shit for brains, I just proved the Constitution does not allow the federal government to regulate farmers or manufacturers. It only regulates sales across state lines.

Why do you think, even if true, that such a thing matters?

ROFL! You just proved you don't give a crap about what the Constitution says.

I care to the point where it still makes sense, for a people living 230 years after it was written. It was only supposed to last for a generation, at least that's what they expected. It's on paper, not carved in stone, for a reason.

They expected it to last forever if adhered to.

LOL, no, they expected no such thing. Utter nonsense.

"On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only." - Thomas Jefferson to James Madison
Popular Basis of Political Authority: Thomas Jefferson to James Madison

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Socialism is the dream of the delusional...
Lol

The Swedes, Danes, British, etc. are delusional? You need a better mirror.

Of course they are, the euro zone is all but dead...
Anyway,this "it takes a village' bullshit is as cowardly as it gets...

What a shame that you used our roads, parks, schools, courts, etc. Only a island of one fits your needs apparently.