Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:
Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?
Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.
And JoeFuckTard huh? Wow, you've really put some work into your insults lately.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
Utter horse shit. Says who? What could be more idiotic than saying this spending over hear causes the deficit but not that spending over there? Spending is spending. It all contributes to the deficit.
So?
"We constantly hear from Wall Street gangsters and from Republicans and an occasional Democrat that Social Security and Medicare are a form of welfare that we cant afford, an unfunded liability. This is a lie. Social Security is funded with an earmarked tax. People pay for Social Security and Medicare all their working lives. It is a pay-as-you-go system in which the taxes paid by those working fund those who are retired.
Currently these systems are not in deficit."
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics
"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Even Obama says that Medicare and Medicaid are the biggest drivers of the deficit, and Politifact agrees with hi,
PolitiFact | Obama says Medicare and Medicaid are largest deficit drivers. Yes, over the long term.
Allow me to explain what JoeFuckTard just said:
Football teams compete. There is a game involved. Each time tries to score more than the other team. If one team manages to score more TD's and FG's, they have an unfair advantage. Refs should help "neutralize" that advantage to ensure that the better team does not win. See how that works?
Hey, guess what? There are penalties in football for things like pass interference, jumping the snap, unneccessary roughness... They all involve loss of yardage and they have nothing to do with one team outscoring another.
And JoeFuckTard huh? Wow, you've really put some work into your insults lately.
Hey, guess what? Everything you just mentioned are things that are illegal in football. And so to compare apples-to-apples (something you refuse to do because it proves how absurd your ideology is), there are penalties in business for illegal activity as well. Things like hiring people "under the table" for less than minimum wage, embezzlement, and fraud... they all involve criminal offenses which have nothing to do with your initial premise that government should punish a business for having more success...
Want to keep going cup-cake? Because you're initial premise was so extremely and remarkably absurd, it is easy picking apart your weak arguments.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
As opposed to what, internalizing costs?!? Don't use words that you don't understand in hopes of sounding "smart". A business doesn't try to "externalize" anything. That's as absurd as saying a business tries to "oxygenate" their costs
A business tries to do one thing and only one thing - make a profit. They do that by earning more money than they spend. Now, if they are smart enough to reduce what they spend (or as you call it "externalize cost"), what is "unfair" about that? If they outsource labor with a 3rd party company at a better rate than having the labor internal, what is "unfair" about that? If they purchase materials for their product from a company that offers them a better price than their previous supplier, what is "unfair" about that?
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
This is a profound insight into the mind of the modern day libtard. The fact that you believe taxes are for "neutralizing" perceived advantages and/or punishing people is simply astounding.
Taxes are intended to generate the revenue necessary for government to operate. Nothing more.
The three main goals of libertarianism
1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.
2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.
3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.
That about sums it up!
Kind of hard to explain something you don't understand isn't it?The three main goals of libertarianism
1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.
2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.
3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.
That about sums it up!
Actually, you may wish to look up the meaning of that word.
What you've described in your post is pretty much what the GOP wants, and it's not liberty, its more of a description of slavery.
Sorry.......................but I spent 20 years of my life defending this country, and I don't want to see some idiot corporation (that will never serve in a war zone) deciding what is good for my country or not.
And people would have ceased buying their insurance in sufficient numbers to make the practice economically unworkable.Bull-fucking-shit.
Its costs are well more than 10X than was projected, when enacted in 1965.
Any private company that got its costs off by that much would have been out of business in less than a decade.
Or they would continue to raise premiums to meet costs and assure a profit albeit much less efficiently than Medicare.
They are both 3rd party payers their cost is mostly dependent on the health care provider.
But a private insurance company cannot take resources from its "investors" at gunpoint....Medicare can and has done so for over 50 years....They can do that because they aren't subject to the normal P/L analysis.
And people would have ceased buying their insurance in sufficient numbers to make the practice economically unworkable.Or they would continue to raise premiums to meet costs and assure a profit albeit much less efficiently than Medicare.
They are both 3rd party payers their cost is mostly dependent on the health care provider.
But a private insurance company cannot take resources from its "investors" at gunpoint....Medicare can and has done so for over 50 years....They can do that because they aren't subject to the normal P/L analysis.
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
Corporations produce products or services. There are costs involved. The corporations try to externalize as many of those costs as they can because it means more profit for themselves. If one corporation externalizes more costs than another, they have an unfair advantage. Taxes help neutralize that advantage. Then it is up to the consumer to patronize the company that provides the best product for the price with those costs included. See how that works?
As opposed to what, internalizing costs?!? Don't use words that you don't understand in hopes of sounding "smart". A business doesn't try to "externalize" anything. That's as absurd as saying a business tries to "oxygenate" their costs
A business tries to do one thing and only one thing - make a profit. They do that by earning more money than they spend. Now, if they are smart enough to reduce what they spend (or as you call it "externalize cost"), what is "unfair" about that? If they outsource labor with a 3rd party company at a better rate than having the labor internal, what is "unfair" about that? If they purchase materials for their product from a company that offers them a better price than their previous supplier, what is "unfair" about that?
The three main goals of libertarianism
1) Decrease wages salaries and benefits for the poor and middle class as much as possible. Lower wages salaries and benefits for those who labor means those who own can profit more.
2) Decrease taxes on the wealthy as much as possible. No explanation needed.
3) Remove all regulations that make it harder for the wealthy to herd the poor like cattle - and remove all regulations that make it possible for a healthy middle class to exist. Regulation is the enemy of profit and profit is the only thing that matters.
That about sums it up!
Actually, you may wish to look up the meaning of that word.
What you've described in your post is pretty much what the GOP wants, and it's not liberty, its more of a description of slavery.
Sorry.......................but I spent 20 years of my life defending this country, and I don't want to see some idiot corporation (that will never serve in a war zone) deciding what is good for my country or not.
Sorry, but I spent 23 years of my life defending this country and dont want to see some elitist, progressive, left wing liberal panty waste POS president( who has never worn a uniform or served in a war zone) deciding whats good for my country.
And people would have ceased buying their insurance in sufficient numbers to make the practice economically unworkable.
But a private insurance company cannot take resources from its "investors" at gunpoint....Medicare can and has done so for over 50 years....They can do that because they aren't subject to the normal P/L analysis.
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
Sure, right after we take the profit motive out of feeding, clothing and sheltering people.
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
I see. So medical professionals , hospitals , pharmacies should not get paid
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
Sure, right after we take the profit motive out of feeding, clothing and sheltering people.
So multimillion dollar packages for health care ceo's are ok but taking care of people isn't? There's less of a profit motive if the government runs the health care system and there's less overhead, although taxes would be higher because there would be more people being taken care of.
Which is why we need to get the profit motive out of taking care of people. Medicare for all or single payer. People are humans, not a P/L analysis to make sure a CEO gets millions a year and stock options.
I see. So medical professionals , hospitals , pharmacies should not get paid
There are tons of non-profit organizations that have paid employees.
