This is why we need to tax the wealthy

[pknopp]

Read my post as many times as it takes for your pea brain to comprehend what I said. HINT: Concentrate on the all caps, Moron.

You aren't saying anything.

 

[Nostra]

You aren't saying anything.

It’s not hard to post well beyond your extremely limited cognitive skills, Window Licker.

 

[Markle]

Welfare For The Rich:

RANK	PARENT	SUBSIDY VALUE.	NUMBER OF AWARDS
1	Boeing	$15,299,301,828	919
2	Intel	$8,355,493,707	126
3	Ford Motor	$7,711,954,966	685
4	General Motors	$7,474,648,736	763
5	Micron Technology	$6,785,681,915	18
6	Alcoa	$5,727,691,764	134
7	Cheniere Energy	$5,617,152,523	42
8	Amazon.com	$5,362,872,810	393
9	Foxconn Technology Group (Hon Hai Precision Industry Company)	$4,820,110,112	74
10	Volkswagen	$3,876,017,317	201
11	Sempra Energy	$3,828,022,782	51
12	NRG Energy	$3,405,383,876	262
13	Texas Instruments	$3,297,406,673	58
14	Venture Global LNG	$3,285,883,566	6
15	NextEra Energy	$3,008,691,129	117
16	Sasol	$2,836,049,845	72
17	Tesla Inc.	$2,829,855,494	114
18	Stellantis	$2,795,436,436	212
19	Nucor	$2,518,064,340	159
20	Walt Disney	$2,421,480,784	249
21	Iberdrola	$2,380,537,196	109
22	Toyota	$2,303,826,689	199
23	Shell PLC	$2,210,816,246	130
24	Oracle	$2,167,890,528	88
25	Mubadala Investment Company	$2,124,035,097	62
26	Nike	$2,104,917,829	138
27	Hyundai Motor	$2,048,610,159	17
28	Brookfield Asset Management	$1,965,174,610	221
29	Meta Platforms Inc.	$1,931,193,644	59
30	Alphabet Inc.	$1,927,519,074	121
31	Exxon Mobil	$1,891,153,489	207
32	Nissan	$1,842,814,165	87
33	Samsung	$1,824,560,806	72
34	Apple Inc.	$1,822,765,569	47
35	Berkshire Hathaway	$1,821,345,126	1,156
36	Summit Power	$1,783,593,414	6
37	Comcast	$1,757,958,784	383
38	Paramount Global	$1,751,931,557	318
39	Air Products & Chemicals	$1,723,155,312	78
40	Cleveland-Cliffs	$1,705,497,604	124
41	General Electric	$1,687,039,351	979
42	Southern Company	$1,671,678,366	43
43	JPMorgan Chase	$1,663,593,063	1,127
44	Energy Transfer	$1,634,128,172	106
45	Vornado Realty Trust	$1,623,857,336	33
46	Duke Energy	$1,579,449,473	85
47	Wolfspeed Inc.	$1,560,125,015	63
48	SkyWest	$1,550,492,958	683
49	Rivian Automotive Inc.	$1,532,854,012	3
50	IBM Corp.	$1,495,438,545	367
51	OGE Energy	$1,427,570,182	15
52	SCS Energy	$1,419,011,796	5
53	General Atomics	$1,408,185,425	105
54	Panasonic	$1,384,147,584	61
55	Lockheed Martin	$1,330,320,782	316
56	Sagamore Development	$1,320,000,000	2
57	Northrop Grumman	$1,274,514,883	249
58	Corning Inc.	$1,262,885,869	389
59	Vingroup	$1,254,000,000	1
60	Continental AG	$1,244,875,478	111
61	Microsoft	$1,217,430,220	104
62	RTX Corporation	$1,162,467,558	741
63	Jefferies Financial Group	$1,144,919,260	17
64	SK Holdings	$1,081,550,283	9
65	Valero Energy	$1,053,812,692	197
66	Dow Inc.	$1,049,354,213	619
67	AES Corp.	$1,030,194,632	132
68	Exelon	$982,955,949	58
69	CF Industries	$982,271,715	129
70	Abengoa	$979,241,701	39
71	Pyramid Companies	$966,050,097	91
72	Mazda Toyota Manufacturing, U.S.A., Inc.	$900,000,000	1
73	Apollo Global Management	$896,260,221	575
74	LG	$879,583,102	86
75	Delta Air Lines	$876,412,623	14
76	Centene	$875,369,834	55
77	Bayer	$850,128,391	200
78	Honda	$849,832,301	92
79	Shin-Etsu Chemical	$827,644,305	105
80	Enterprise Products Partners	$826,988,371	83
81	SunEdison	$813,584,873	113
82	Goldman Sachs	$800,873,386	253
83	E.ON	$782,609,880	38
84	Archer Daniels Midland	$771,669,569	1,085
85	EDF-Electricite de France	$759,943,523	35
86	Triple Five Worldwide	$748,000,000	4
87	Bank of America	$744,566,157	926
88	EDP-Energias de Portugal	$733,674,868	14
89	Warner Bros. Discovery Inc.	$725,762,690	209
90	Related Companies	$687,200,000	1
91	Koch Industries	$672,949,735	489
92	Caithness Energy	$670,379,738	28
93	Hyannis Air Service Inc.	$667,928,778	296
94	Wells Fargo	$648,073,003	525
95	Entergy	$638,345,893	234
96	OCI N.V.	$627,879,406	5
97	FedEx	$621,948,452	604
98	Bedrock Detroit	$618,000,000	1
99	Dominion Energy	$615,436,089	50

Download results as CSV or XML or Save your search (Click here for information on download subscriptions)

• 
  Corporate Bailouts and Subsidies: Large corporations often receive substantial financial support from the government, particularly during economic downturns. These bailouts, funded by taxpayers, are justified as necessary to prevent economic collapse. However, they represent a form of socialism for the rich, where losses are socialized while profits remain privatized. This dynamic creates a safety net for the wealthy, contrary to the 'risk and reward' principle often touted in capitalist systems.
• Legislative Influence Through Lobbying: Wealthy corporations and individuals exert significant influence over legislation through lobbying and Super PACs. This influence allows them to shape laws and regulations in ways that benefit them financially, often at the expense of public interest. This process effectively undermines democratic principles, as the policy-making process is swayed in favor of those with financial clout.
• Fossil Fuel Dependency: The sustained reliance on fossil fuels, despite the availability of cleaner alternatives like nuclear energy, is a glaring example of how corporate interests can override public good. The fossil fuel industry, backed by substantial subsidies and political influence, has managed to maintain its dominance, delaying the transition to cleaner energy sources. This not only perpetuates environmental harm but also hinders technological and economic progress in the field of renewable energy.
• Nuclear Energy as a Missed Opportunity: Nuclear energy, which can be a clean and efficient power source, has been sidelined due in part to the fossil fuel lobby's influence. The potential of nuclear power to provide a sustainable energy solution and even produce clean liquid fuel for vehicles has been underexploited. This is a clear example of how entrenched corporate interests can stifle innovation and progress in sectors that threaten their profitability.
• Economic Inequality and Socialism for the Rich: The combination of bailouts, subsidies, and legislative influence creates an economic system where the rich are protected and supported by government policies, a privilege not extended to the general public. This is a form of socialism for the rich, as it socializes risks and costs while privatizing profits. In contrast, the working and middle classes often bear the brunt of economic downturns, with less access to government support and fewer opportunities to influence policy.

You are doubling down on your misinformation. You don't even know the answers to the simple questions I posed to you. You must be so proud.

 

[Markle]

I'm answering two of your posts here...

Only working-class people should work, not the wealthy who own them for eight, or twelve hours + daily, right? When the working class receives public goods and services from the government, they're being lazy and don't want to work. When the rich get public services in the form of bailouts, plenty of yearly subsidies, "rewards", guaranteed contracts (without even having to bid for them), perks, and benefits, it's just normal, hey why not? On top of that, they have their cronies in government passing laws that serve their vested interests at the expense of the public. We live in a plutocracy (Rule of The Big Money), not a democracy (Rule Of The People).

View attachment 887241​

Stop pretending America is a democracy, we just have the illusion of it and you've fallen for it. How many people die in this country due to a lack of public services that are taken for granted in other modern, industrialized nations? Scores, hundreds of thousands yearly, yet you're clueless. How many Americans die annually due to not being able to afford regular checkups or being overwhelmed with medical bills and unable to support themselves as a result?

My stepfather twelve years ago almost died, when he was in his late 50s due to medical bills and not getting the healthcare coverage he needed from his private health insurance. He had to file for bankruptcy and apply for SSD and Medicaid.

As far as what you said about communism. FIrst of all, the USSR wasn't communist, it was socialist.

USSR = UNITED SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS
​

Do you see the word "communist" there anywhere? Lenin and Stalin never used the word "communist" to describe the economy of the USSR, but rather SOCIALIST. Communism as defined by Marx, Engels, Lenin, and practically all well-informed academics, is a society without a state, socioeconomic classes, or the need for money. So for you to use the term "Communist State" is oxymoronic. It can't exist. The only reason socialists like me sometimes identify ourselves as communists, is because communism is the objective of socialism. It's where we're heading, not where we are.

Communism ".... A communist society would entail the absence of private property and social classes,[1] and ultimately money[6] and the state (or nation state).[7][8][9]

Note: We communists, make a distinction between private and personal property. Your house, car, computer, smartphone, toothbrush, and Fruit Of The Looms, are your personal property. Any property used to make a monetary profit, especially if it can be used to exploit other human beings, is considered private property.

Communism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Withering away of the state - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The State and Revolution — Chapter 5

The State and Revolution: Chapter 5: The Economic Basis of the Withering Away of the State

www.marxists.org

Learn Marxist socialism before criticizing it. At least know what we believe and represent.

View attachment 887245

Young Russian Soldiers 2022​

This is a 2017 poll in Russia about the USSR:

In Russia, nostalgia for Soviet Union and positive feelings about Stalin

Many Russians say the collapse of the Soviet Union has been a bad thing for their country. Nostalgia for the Soviet past also extends to views of Josef Stalin.

www.pewresearch.org

2018:
View attachment 887250

​

You're just parroting the old capitalist Cold War propaganda that you grew up with. A poll was taken in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union was at its worst financially due to all of the "Perestroika" and "Glasnost", that was verified by the UN, showing that 77% of Soviet Citizens were satisfied with their government. Even then, they were mostly pro-USSR and didn't feel "oppressed" or destitute.

Let me ask you, doesn't the US restrict travel to certain countries? Cuba, Venezuela..etc. You can find the list on the US State Department website. Soviet Russia was surrounded by capitalist powers, even to the point of being invaded right after its birthday in 1917 by several empires:

1. 
   United Kingdom: The UK was a leading force in the intervention. British troops were involved in Northern Russia and the Arctic, as well as in the Baltic states and the Black Sea region. The UK also provided significant military supplies and financial support to anti-Bolshevik forces (i.e. White Armies).
2. France: France was another major player, sending troops primarily to the Black Sea region and Northwestern Russia. The French were instrumental in supporting anti-Bolshevik White forces vs the Socialist Bolshevik Red Army.
3. United States: American troops deployed in North Russia (around Archangel) and Siberia. The U.S. aimed to protect military stores and, to a lesser extent, to help the Czechoslovak Legion evacuate.
4. Japan: Japan sent a significant number of troops to Siberia, focusing on Eastern Russia.
5. Italy: Italian troops were primarily deployed in the Black Sea region.
6. Canada: Canadian forces participated as part of the British Empire's contribution, particularly in Northern Russia.
7. Australia: Australia, also part of the British Empire, contributed a smaller contingent of troops, mainly serving under British command.
8. Greece: Greek forces, under French command, participated in the Crimea campaign in 1919. This involvement was part of Greece's broader post-World War I foreign policy objectives.

And several other countries, like Serbia, Romania..etc. Over 200 thousand troops in all, not counting the Russian Tsarist, pro-capitalist "White Armies", which numbered about another quarter million troops. That's what the Soviets had to deal with from the very beginning. Throughout its history, it only had relative peace in the 1930s, until it was invaded by four million Nazi Germans in 1941, resulting in the death of approximately 28 million of its citizens. We never hear about that holocaust, just the Jewish one. Nine million Red Army soldiers died on the battlefield and eighteen million Soviet civilians. That's 14% of its population dying as a result of WW2.

View attachment 887297​

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and rebuild their country after being left in ruins. Why are you complaining about its travel restrictions? If the US had suffered the same level of destruction at home, it would also impose its restrictions. There are many restrictions that the US government imposes on its citizens during a crisis. Japanese Americans were forced into concentration camps and there was plenty of rationing and other laws that came into effect during the war, which could be seen as overbearing.

• 
  World War II (1941-1945): During World War II, the U.S. government imposed restrictions on domestic travel to conserve resources for the war effort. This included rationing gasoline and limiting civilian access to transportation.
• Cuban Travel Restrictions (1960s - present): After the Cuban Revolution and the subsequent deterioration of U.S.-Cuba relations, the U.S. imposed strict travel restrictions on American citizens visiting Cuba. These restrictions have fluctuated over the years, with periods of loosening and tightening.
• Iran Hostage Crisis (1979-1981): Following the Iran Hostage Crisis, the U.S. imposed sanctions on Iran, which included travel restrictions for American citizens.
• Travel Alerts and Warnings (Post-9/11): After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, the U.S. Department of State began issuing more frequent travel alerts and warnings for American citizens traveling to areas of conflict or where there was a high risk of terrorism.
• North Korea Travel Ban (2017-present): In response to the heightened risk of arrest and long-term detention of Americans in North Korea, the U.S. government prohibited the use of U.S. passports for travel into, in, or through North Korea.
• COVID-19 Pandemic (2020-2023): During the COVID-19 pandemic, the U.S. government imposed a series of travel restrictions to control the spread of the virus. These included bans on entry for non-citizens from certain countries and regions heavily affected by COVID-19, as well as domestic travel advisories and requirements for testing and quarantine.

The point is that for whatever reason stated above, the US government has no issue with imposing travel restrictions, and the USSR given its situation also had its travel restrictions. The US and its allies were doing everything possible to undermine the Soviet economy, including enticing its scientists, engineers, and academics to leave and work for the CIA, writing ugly books about the USSR, and giving away secrets..etc. It was a war, so of course there were restrictions. Despite this, most Soviet citizens were satisfied with their government and didn't try to leave, even when they had the opportunity to do so.

There were student exchange programs, between the US and the Soviet Union and the vast majority of Soviet students didn't defect. They returned home, back to the USSR, after studying in the USA.

1. The United States Information Agency (USIA) conducted exchanges under various programs.
2. Fulbright Program: While initially limited during the height of the Cold War, the Fulbright Program, which aims to increase mutual understanding through educational exchange, eventually expanded to include the Soviet Union. This program allowed for the exchange of scholars and students.
3. Cultural Exchanges: Beyond academic programs, there were also cultural exchanges, including visits by artists, musicians, and other cultural figures. These exchanges were often more visible and had a broader public impact.
4. National Council for Soviet and East European Research: Established its office in the U.S, this organization facilitated scholarly research and exchanges.

Why didn't these Soviet citizens all defect if the USSR was "SO BAD"? Maybe it wasn't as bad as our Cold War American propaganda claimed.

Going back to the situation right after WWII. Much of Soviet Russia's national infrastructure which had been built since the 1920s, was rubble after the war. Was there an American "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, who had sacrificed so much on behalf of the Allies in the war? No.

The American "Marshal Plan" to rebuild the nations of Europe and Asia, didn't apply to the Soviet Union. The US was left unscathed after the war, fully intact, without losing even one structure. I believe only one or two American civilians died within the United States as a result of enemy fire, through a Japanese weather balloon bomb. Google it. The US lost 460 thousand of its citizens, practically all of them were combatants. American casualties amounted to 0.03% of its population. Again, the Soviets lost 14%, with 28 million casualties. Is there any comparison at all between those two? Russia lost over 50 times the people, due to being in Europe, rather than protected by thousands of miles of two vast oceans (i.e. Pacific - Atlantic).

View attachment 887284
​

Notwithstanding all of the aforementioned facts the Soviet Union got back on its feet and became a world nuclear superpower with the second largest economy in the world. They were launching rockets with cosmonauts into space not that long after the devastation they suffered during World War II.

View attachment 887286​

They were the FIRST IN SPACE! That's impressive and to pretend otherwise is simply disingenuous. No other political and economic system can achieve that other than socialism. There's no other system that can industrialize and build a nation as quickly as a socialist, rationally, centrally planned economy.
The Soviet Union, a new nation, was in a state of war, encircled by the most powerful nations in human history, so if it eventually lost the Cold War and dissolved, does that imply that it will never rise again much stronger or that markeless socialism at a national scale as what we saw in the USSR will never be successful in another country? No.

Every single country that has mostly a centrally planned economy without major markets today is under the heel of American economic sanctions and the constant threat of military invasion by the United States. Have you ever factored that into your assessment of the viability of a centrally planned, socialist economy? They're all in a state of war, encircled by the US and its cronies. Hello?

You don't have the ideological luxury of claiming socialism doesn't work when your capitalist, imperialist buddies in Washington are depriving such nations of engaging in international trade and normal diplomatic relations with other countries. No one defies the US embargo on centrally planned, marketless socialism unless they plan to suffer the same fate and lose their economies and perhaps their lives. No one wants to trade with these countries because they get blacklisted, penalized, if not economically and politically sanctioned themselves.

To give you an example. Every single cargo ship that ports in Cuba can't anchor in American ports, anywhere, be it in the lower 48 or Alaska, Hawai, Guam the US Virgin Islands, or Puerto Rico. etc, for six months. Your expensive cargo ship is barred from The Empire for 180 days. Who the hell wants to port in Cuba? No one. If you have a bank and you give Cuba a loan, you will get audited by the US and most likely fined. They'll find some violation, somewhere, or they'll conjure it up from their magical hat. What international banks want to open a line of credit with the Cuban government or Cuban companies? None.

Despite this, Cuba survives in the shadow of a hostile, capitalist empire, 90 miles from its shores.

The US owns and controls the world's reserve currency and its banking institutions, hence no one resists The Empire. Whatever its demands, the world cowers.

Why are the American wealthy elites so afraid that they have to lobby Washington so hard, to continue punishing little marketless, socialist nations like Cuba? The market-socialist nations or mixed economies of the world (Western Europe is mostly a mixed economy), don't have much to worry about from the United States provided they continue serving American foreign policy. But the mostly non-profit, marketless economies, or true socialist-Marxist-run countries, have everything to worry about. AND YET THEY SURVIVE. Hello? The resilience and power of socialism.

In your fantasy world, do economic and political systems replace others overnight? Did capitalism replace chattel slavery and feudalism, in one single swoop of the sword? It took centuries for the mercantile class to replace the royal aristocracy of Europe as the dominant, ruling class. It wouldn't occur until technology permitted the merchants to become the powerful industrialists of the 19th century. That's when capitalism and its republicanism, took hold in the world. For centuries the royals and their nobles laughed at the prospect of a bunch of merchant traders replacing them and eventually that's what happened.

Now with the advent of advanced automation, artificial intelligence, and quantum computing, we are entering into the socialist age. When production becomes so advanced that human input is reduced to a minimum, due to intelligent automation, that's the end of capitalism.

If a powerful computer can do all of the accounting and with onsite sensors can collect data and then control all of the robots and self-driving vehicles, all of the machinery, essentially automating the process of production with all of its logistics, that's the end of capitalism and the beginning of the socialist age. You can pout, huff, and puff, have your tantrum, and thumb down all of my posts, but nonetheless, if you're smart, you know this is true. You're suffering from a bad case of cognitive dissonance hence your inability to admit it openly and come to terms with it. Socialism is the natural successor of capitalism, due to technology, it's that simple. The alternative is techno-feudalism.

Soylent Green is People! - Classic Movie Scene​

 

[TruthNotBS]

I employ many people across multiple companies here in South Mexifornia… All of my employees are well taken care of, I do not need a government agency or union to tell me how to treat an employee. If I mistreat them, they quit and go work for a competitor…such is the nature of capitalism.
Further, isn’t it you commie-lite socialist beggars who tell us we need illegal thirdworlders who are willing to work shit jobs for shit money…those who will not push for conditions so we can keep our 20% discount on lettuce?
pknopp

I employ many people across multiple companies here in South Mexifornia…

You exploit a lot of people, you're nothing more than a pathetic leech, who wants to live off of other people's hard work. Lift your sleeves and get to work you bum loser.

All of my employees are well taken care of...

Spoken like a true slave master.

"All of MY WORKERS are taken well care of.."

I do not need a government agency or union to tell me how to treat an employee.

Your "employees" are human beings who have just as much a right to unionize as you do with your fellow slave masters and exploiters. It doesn't matter how you feel about the government telling you what to do, the government is there to protect everyone's rights, including those of your workers. Who protects our rights and enforces the law when those rights are violated? The government we created as a people to do that, the fact that your self-entitled, privileged capitalist class doesn't like that has no bearing on whether the human beings that you exploit ("Your" Workers), should or can have their rights protected by the government.

If I mistreat them, they quit and go work for a competitor…

If you mistreat and hurt them they should file a class action lawsuit through their labor union or organize a strike and your manicured pansy ass will be crying to your mommy like the worthless, deluded, lazy punk that you are.


...such is the nature of capitalism.

Yes, it is. Thanks for being honest, but we workers aren't subject to your capitalist nature or interests when it's at our expense. Boohoo, deal with it, it's called class warfare and the workers always win in the end, because we comprise 94% of the population whereas you are only 6% at best. In the end, the working class always wins.

Further, isn’t it you commie-lite socialist beggars

You're the self-entitled lazy piece of shit who wants others working for him.

....who tell us we need illegal thirdworlders who are willing to work shit jobs for shit money…

It's you capitalists who facilitate the illegal immigration from the third world, by illegally hiring them for peanuts. You also support a foreign policy that creates the conditions that motivate these Latin American migrants to seek asylum in the United States. So you're the source of the problem, not the American working class.


...those who will not push for conditions so we can keep our 20% discount on lettuce?

Stop ensuring people remain poor in third-world countries where you do everything possible to prevent these people from developing their own middle-class or skilled, well-paid labor. You lobby the US to economically sanction Latin American countries that protect their local markets from foreign interference (i.e. American and European corporations owning their economies), including their labor markets, and then start whining about illegal immigration when these people leave their countries and come here. Also, stop hiring these illegal immigrants once they arrive. People like you, hire these illegals. Stop complaining about illegals when you're doing all of the above.

 

[TruthNotBS]

You are doubling down on your misinformation. You don't even know the answers to the simple questions I posed to you. You must be so proud.

What "questions" did you ask me that I didn't answer? What are they? I'm not going to go hunting for them on the thread, list them here.

 

[Nostra]

He's on my "ignore" list where he belongs. All he does is insult people, that's it. He has no arguments.

Looks like I kicked the lad’s ass one too many times.

Cupcake.

 

[Markle]

I'm curious, Christian. Do you ever have an original thought? Or is the best that you can do is to cut and paste the propaganda that you obviously believe in wholeheartedly?

Read your statement out loud while recording it then play it back to yourself a few hundred times.

There was a time when unions were about protecting workers. Is that really the case now?

Yes,

Or have we reached the point where unions are more about protecting the political power of union leadership and the perks that come with that?

No. You're just conveniently emphasizing the negative possibilities of some unions, and ignoring the many benefits of practically all of them. I speak from experience as a CNC machinist and coder, if it wasn't for my membership in the union I would've made about 1/3rd less throughout my career and I wouldn't have even half of the benefits that I enjoy now.

The few workers that I know who work for the companies that I am sometimes contracted out to who aren't unionized make less than me and have little benefits if any. Read what the father of capitalism, Adam Smith, had to say about unions:

What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen desire to get as much, the masters to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (to unionize) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (the masters/employers/capitalists also "combine"/unionize with their chambers of commerce, industry organizations, guilds, super-PACs, with their army of lobbyists, think tanks, cronies in government..etc) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations, while it prohibits those of the workmen. (Wealth of Nations: Book I, Chapter VIII)

EMPHASIS MINE

At the end of the quote above Smith states that the law or government, "prohibits" the "combinations" (i.e. unions) of labor, while allowing the unions or organizations of masters (i.e. capitalists). Scholars are divided as to whether he means that the government outright criminalizes labor unions or that creates conditions that make them difficult to organize and sustain, being that without government-protected rights, workers can't unionize effectively.

Smith the father of industrial, modern capitalism, admits that masters (i.e. employers/capitalists), and their employees have different interests, and when it comes to one having the upper hand over the other in negotiating their terms of employment, the masters possess the increased leverage and power, not the employees, hence it behooves workers to unionize.

Are you a capitalist master? You sound like one, not a worker. Either you're a capitalist or you're one of their brainwashed peasants who associate and identify with the upper class rather than with the working class. Sometimes management, which is still part of the working class, identifies more with their employers than with their fellow workers. They see themselves as being part of a superior class of workers closer in proximity to their master/s when it comes to their interests than their subordinates. That's also one of the reasons workers need labor unions, in order to protect them against people like yourself who will betray them in a labor dispute.

The fastest-growing sector of unions these days is in the public sector


Let's assume you're correct, so what? Labor is labor, whether it's working for a capitalist or the state.


...a sector where workers are already "protected" to the point where it's extremely hard to get rid of Government workers who do shoddy work!

Not necessarily, that depends. You're just parroting your silly capitalist rhetoric against government workers, advancing the canard that government workers are inferior to workers in the private sector. Are you suggesting that our men and women in uniform, both in the military and law enforcement are less than mercenaries, who are contracted by a for-profit company to do the same type of job?

Your views are always stupid. Everything that comes out of your right-wing Republican keyboard amounts to a pile of shit. The only reason I respond to your posts is for the sake of others who might be sincerely searching for the truth on these matters.

 

[Mac-7]

It's you capitalists who facilitate the illegal immigration from the third world, by illegally hiring them for peanuts.

Its not as simple as that

With many companies competing with each other price often becomes the deciding factor for consumers

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

 

[Markle]

I've answered this question many times. It's nothing more than an empty diversion. We have to pay off the debt and to do that we need to make cuts and raise income and that income should come from those who have benefitted the most.

Others can figure out what exactly those numbers should be. That's what they get paid for.

Then, obviously, those numbers are easily available to you, and yet, you don't have a clue. Is it simply ignorance on your part or. do they not exist?

Here's a starting point for you, how much more should the rich pay?

 

[TruthNotBS]

Its not as simple as that

With many companies competing with each other price often becomes the deciding factor for consumers

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

Of course, consumers want prices as low as possible, just like capitalists on the other hand want prices as high as possible. Your point is moot because this obvious fact doesn't justify breaking the law. Moreover, the capitalists set the prices, hence they have no excuse for illegally hiring undocumented workers. Much of the money those undocumented workers earn is sent back to Latin America to support their families, hence as an employer (i.e. American employer), you're hurting your community and country when you hire them.

The American consumer is also the American worker, so if you hurt American workers, you're hurting the American consumer and yourself as a business owner who mostly depends on the American workforce to purchase what you're selling. Don't you realize that? You're hurting yourself as an American business owner and your country. Aren't you right-wing Republicans the super-patriots? Odd.

 

[Mac-7]

Of course, consumers want prices as low as possible, just like capitalists on the other hand want prices as high as possible. Your point is moot because this obvious fact doesn't justify breaking the law. Moreover, the capitalists set the prices, hence they have no excuse for illegally hiring undocumented workers. Much of the money those undocumented workers earn is sent back to Latin America to support their families, hence as an employer (i.e. American employer), you're hurting your community and country when you hire them.

The American consumer is also the American worker, so if you hurt American workers, you're hurting the American consumer and yourself as a business owner who mostly depends on the American workforce to purchase what you're selling. Don't you realize that?

As a union worker you dont have to worry about making a profit

But the company does or it wont stay in business and you wont have a job

 

[TruthNotBS]

As a union worker you dont have to worry about making a profit

But the company does or it wont stay in business and you wont have a job

What does that have to do with breaking the law by hiring undocumented workers? Again, your point is moot. My capitalist employer has to make a profit, yes indeed, (and workers have to earn a decent, living wage) and that has nothing to do with breaking the law by hiring undocumented workers.

You also ignored my point that when you hire illegal immigrants rather than an American or legal resident you're hurting yourself because the money they earn doesn't return to you through the purchase of the products and services that you're selling. It's wired through MoneyGram to Mexico or Nicaragua. You need to study economics and logic.

 

[Libby von H]

Good God, can you really be this stupid? Do you have a clue what an unrealized gain is. It can't be spent, it's just an entry on a ledger that can change form day to day, depending on the markets. Let's say your house increases by 100,000 and you're taxed on that. Then the real estate market tanks and it loses 125,000 in value, can you get a refund of previous taxes paid, plus the tax rate on your loss? Or would it be better to wait until the gain is realized and tax it then? Come on child, think!

.

Unrealized gain ...so Michelle Obama donates to the Clinton Foundation andthe Clintons, to the Obama Foundation and there is MORE money all around

If the stock has increased in value from the time of purchase, the owner can avoid paying capital gains tax by donating the security to a qualified charitable organization. When an appreciated security held for at least a year is donated to a charitable organization, its fair market value may be itemized as an income tax deduction.

Internal Revenue Service. "Publication Publication 526 (2021), Charitable Contributions: Giving Property That Has Increased in Value: Capital Gain Property."

The resulting tax savings could be factored in to make a larger donation.

 

[OKTexas]

Unrealized gain ...so Michelle Obama donates to the Clinton Foundation andthe Clintons, to the Obama Foundation and there is MORE money all around

If the stock has increased in value from the time of purchase, the owner can avoid paying capital gains tax by donating the security to a qualified charitable organization. When an appreciated security held for at least a year is donated to a charitable organization, its fair market value may be itemized as an income tax deduction.

Internal Revenue Service. "Publication Publication 526 (2021), Charitable Contributions: Giving Property That Has Increased in Value: Capital Gain Property."

The resulting tax savings could be factored in to make a larger donation.

Okay, and? At the point the stock changes hands, gains have been realized, that's why they can deduct the full value. It has nothing to do with taxing unrealized gains. Should they give tax credits for unrealized losses?

.

 

[Mac-7]

With many companies competing with each other price often becomes the deciding factor for consumers

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

I will repeat myself just for you:

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

 

[TruthNotBS]

I will repeat myself just for you:

If one company hires illegals and can offer the product at a lower price every company is forced to hire illegals also

Why are you responding to yourself? You don't want the forum to notify me when you post a response to me?

You can repeat yourself 1000 times and what I said still stands. No one is forcing you to break the law and hire illegals, you're doing that of your own free choice. If one company hires illegals they should be prosecuted to the furthest extent of the law, all you have to do is report them and ICE will visit them. That other company breaking the law doesn't justify you doing it. What you're essentially saying is that capitalism doesn't function unless capitalists break the law.

Your lame excuse that American consumers want reasonable prices or that some rogue capitalists break the law, hence it justifies you committing the crime of hiring illegal immigrants only proves how morally bankrupt and hypocritical capitalists like you are. Stop complaining about illegal immigrants while you continue hiring them, it's pathetic.

 

[Mac-7]

No one is forcing you to break the law and hire illegals

If a company wants to stay in business they are being forced to hire illegals

 

[BrokeLoser]

You exploit a lot of people, you're nothing more than a pathetic leech, who wants to live off of other people's hard work. Lift your sleeves and get to work you bum loser.

I provide opportunity for people. They CHOOSE to work for me…Weird concept huh beggar?

Spoken like a true slave master.

“Slave masters” say….”we need illegals to work the jobs Americans won’t”

Your "employees" are human beings who have just as much a right to unionize as you do with your fellow slave masters and exploiters. It doesn't matter how you feel about the government telling you what to do, the government is there to protect everyone's rights, including those of your workers. Who protects our rights and enforces the law when those rights are violated? The government we created as a people to do that, the fact that your self-entitled, privileged capitalist class doesn't like that has no bearing on whether the human beings that you exploit ("Your" Workers), should or can have their rights protected by the government.

My employees can even quit anytime they want…yet none ever do. I must be taking advantage of them and fucking them over huh beggar?

If you mistreat and hurt them they should file a class action lawsuit through their labor union or organize a strike and your manicured pansy ass will be crying to your mommy like the worthless, deluded, lazy punk that you are.

“Lazy”….WTF
Do you know how difficult it is to start a business and risk it all…to have hundreds counting on you to make shit happen day in and day out?
Beggar, you have no knowledge of anything you speak on do you?

Yes, it is. Thanks for being honest, but we workers aren't subject to your capitalist nature or interests when it's at our expense. Boohoo, deal with it, it's called class warfare and the workers always win in the end, because we comprise 94% of the population whereas you are only 6% at best. In the end, the working class always wins.

Haha…if the workers always win you wouldn’t be begging for higher wages for fewer hours…for better healthcare, for more vacation time…etc etc. Now STFU and get to work beggar!

You're the self-entitled lazy piece of shit who wants others working for him.

Yes…I am a job creator. Your worthless ass would starve without me and those like me.

It's you capitalists who facilitate the illegal immigration from the third world, by illegally hiring them for peanuts. You also support a foreign policy that creates the conditions that motivate these Latin American migrants to seek asylum in the United States. So you're the source of the problem, not the American working class.

Hmmm….is it capitalists who came up with the sanctuary city bullshit…were capitalists calling for an abolishment of iCE? Were capitalists crying like bitches over iCE raids of businesses?

Stop ensuring people remain poor in third-world countries where you do everything possible to prevent these people from developing their own middle-class or skilled, well-paid labor. You lobby the US to economically sanction Latin American countries that protect their local markets from foreign interference (i.e. American and European corporations owning their economies), including their labor markets, and then start whining about illegal immigration when these people leave their countries and come here. Also, stop hiring these illegal immigrants once they arrive. People like you, hire these illegals. Stop complaining about illegals when you're doing all of the above.

I can’t give two-fucks about the subhuman cockroaches having babies they can’t feed in thirdworld shitholes. Evil capitalists aren’t forcing their filthy asses to reproduce at the rate of rodents.

 

[Oldestyle]

There we go again, you can't actually address what I say. Is it your argument we can ignore the debt and let those in the future address it, ramifications of that be damned?

Or is it only "leftists" that want to address the debt?

You think that leftists are addressing the debt? Really PK? I suppose California and the liberals that run it are addressing THEIR debt when they decide to provide Medicare to all of the illegals they've let into the country even though they already have a 34 Billion dollar deficit? You're amusing...