Why Do Democrats Want the Poor to Starve Just to Make It Easy for Illegals to Enter?

[danielpalos]

How about Britannica, dumbass? Or any other outlet outside the GOP propaganda machine? Marxism, then the USSR, now successful modern countries except us of course, thanks to idiots like you...
Socialism - Postwar socialism

Okay, sure, Encyclopedia Britannica works:

It even specifies that it's in direct opposition to Capitalism, which, again, brings me back to every single failure I listed being Socialist, and several of the "successes" you listed being more economically free than America, despite the doctrine being in opposition to Capitalism and requiring Social ownership of the means of production.

Your ignorant adhom attack also brings me back to the point you keep refusing to address, that being that the Economic Calculation Problem and Law of Diminishing Returns preventing government programs from working.

The article you cited, while erroneously referring to the Soviet Union, among other Socialist failures, as communist, also calls them Socialist at the same time. Not only this, but it also admits that this "New definition for Socialism" is not only called something else("Market Socialism"), but still maintains the same components that the name is derived from:

So, once again, you're citing an article that only hurts your argument, especially since at the very end of the Article, the writer is talking about the elimination of individualism and classes:

You linked me an article that was written by a full-blown Marxist, and they still refuted your own argument.

Ownership OR control, idiot. Control over industry and business is what we have, so we are socialists, not communist as in ownership. You are so stupid.

You're just repeating back to me what I've already told you. Social Control of the means of production, as the name components mean, which also means I haven't said a single false thing this entire thread, and you just agreed with me.

Aside from the Communist bit, which is, again, incorrect because Communism is defined as having no Social Classes, no Currency, and no Private Property.

You're also, hilariously, complaining that other locations are doing better than the US while those other locations are more economically free. You're unironically advocating for less government involvement in the market by pointing to more economically free locations, while complaining that we need more Socialism in the US.

Oh, and I didn't call the United States Capitalist. I don't classify any place with a Government as Capitalist, as it's a system independent of the government. I only classify them as more economically free or more Authoritarian.

Calling me stupid when you're unironically proving my point over and over. Spew more adhoms, I'm sure it'll help you look like less of a fool while you're refuting yourself with your own citations.

Guess what, the definition of communism also changed from Marxist pure ideology to the reality of the USSR. At the same time that socialismalso changed definition to the USSR. But since the 20s 30s socialism is only the modern definition. In your world communism has never been tried and socialism is what the USSR called it. LOL. But times have changed and so have the definitions from your ideological ideal.

Firstly, Communism has been tried, communes have existed in numerous locations, on small scales, the world over. Trumbullpex is just one example, the Spanish Revolution, the Reign of Terror, I think the Paris Commune was one as well, though they turned into a dictatorship. Most other Communes tended to murder priests and repossess property. I can't remember the name of it, but there was also one that used coupons as currency eventually. So, yeah, it has been tried before, multiple times, and some still exist today. The definition never changed, the Socialists just attempted to disassociate from Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, and Soviet Russia because Socialism tends to be a colossal failure.

Your own citation refuted your argument, so you're going right back to making baseless assertions again, with no citations. You're probably the most dishonest person on this entire forum.

Well, if a Nation declaring themselves a specific thing changes the definition of a word, then Democratic means totalitarian dictatorship, therefor making Socialism Totalitarian regardless of whether you use the real definition or your erroneous version. This is the logic you operate by, therefor you should be 100% fine with this conclusion.

Government is socialism. Capitalism cannot do without Government.

 

[danielpalos]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Why does the left favor illegals over new Americans that followed the laws? They hate them.

Why does the left try to continue to suppress wages for American workers despite their rhetoric is a mystery. Maybe they believe everyone is retarded.

We understand our Constitution, unlike the right wing.

There is no wall building clause or immigration clause and we should have no illegal problems with a naturalization clause.

we still need to dumb it down enough for the right wing.

 

[danielpalos]

Because they are mainly disabled elderly or children? And is it time to give amnesty to all the felons that can't get jobs? Most of whom it's about drugs or marijuana... What about it law & order idiots?

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

Nobody gives a s*** what you think, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe LOL

Nobody gives a fuck about those who refuse to provide for themselves.

Apparently you do give a shit about what I think. You're on here whining about while the rest of us are being forced to feed the freeloaders for which you only claim to care but do absolutely nothing to help yourself. Maybe they can eat the claims you make about caring. Outside of that, unless YOU'RE giving them something, they should go without until they do for themselves or those actually responsible for them do it.

Jesus the Christ was willing to pay for your refusal to provide for the greater glory of Your immortal soul.

Only the right wing prefers selfishness to promoting the general welfare.

 

[danielpalos]

Millions could face severe cuts to food stamps due to government shutdown.

Why do the Left put illegals ahead of immigrants who follow our laws and the needs of Americans who are in need of help?

Well if you like polls it seem the Democrats are out of step.

Every other country on earth has borders. Every state has a border. Cities and towns have limits (borders). But nearly two-thirds of Democrats think the United States should not have a border or, at least, one that is so strictly enforced.



A newly-released Rasmussen survey found that 65 percent of respondents who identified as Democrats believe “anyone who wants to come here” who has no criminal record and isn’t a terrorist — or, at least, says they’re not a terrorist — should be able to.

In the national survey of 1,000 likely voters, conducted January 10-13, 2019, approving Democrats said it is in America’s best interest “to open our borders to anyone who wants to come here as long as they are not a terrorist or a criminal.”



Only about a quarter (26 percent) of Democrats said the U.S. should “tightly control who come into the country.”

The left understands that we have no immigration clause, and the difference between a naturalization clause.

 

[sparky]

There is no wall building clause or immigration clause and we should have no illegal problems with a naturalization clause

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.

4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019

 

[Conservative65]

Why don't their fucking parents or family members do something to help them instead of begging for it? The taxpayers aren't their ATM nor do they hold any responsibility to do for them what their own family refuses to do.

If you're a felon and can't get a job, that's your fucking problem. Should have thought about that before committing a crime.

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

Nobody gives a s*** what you think, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe LOL

Nobody gives a fuck about those who refuse to provide for themselves.

Apparently you do give a shit about what I think. You're on here whining about while the rest of us are being forced to feed the freeloaders for which you only claim to care but do absolutely nothing to help yourself. Maybe they can eat the claims you make about caring. Outside of that, unless YOU'RE giving them something, they should go without until they do for themselves or those actually responsible for them do it.

Jesus the Christ was willing to pay for your refusal to provide for the greater glory of Your immortal soul.

Only the right wing prefers selfishness to promoting the general welfare.

When it comes to helping others, I follow the words of Christ. I don't support forcing you to help others. All I ask for is the same in return.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't equate to handing some freeloader unwilling to do for him/herself someone else's money.

 

[danielpalos]

There is no wall building clause or immigration clause and we should have no illegal problems with a naturalization clause

Donald J. Trump‏Verified account @realDonaldTrump
H1-B holders in the United States can rest assured that changes are soon coming which will bring both simplicity and certainty to your stay, including a potential path to citizenship. We want to encourage talented and highly skilled people to pursue career options in the U.S.

4:40 AM - 11 Jan 2019

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and increase the minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Also society's problem, since nobody agrees with your let them die philosophy, angry old brainwashed functional moron...

It's not societies problem because their piece of shit family won't take care of them. It tells me that they aren't worth caring for if their own family won't invest in them.

Someone's refusal to do what they're supposed to do doesn't default the responsibility to the rest of us.

I'd let yours die before I'd give them a penny if that little would save their life.

Nobody gives a s*** what you think, brainwashed functional moron hater dupe LOL

Nobody gives a fuck about those who refuse to provide for themselves.

Apparently you do give a shit about what I think. You're on here whining about while the rest of us are being forced to feed the freeloaders for which you only claim to care but do absolutely nothing to help yourself. Maybe they can eat the claims you make about caring. Outside of that, unless YOU'RE giving them something, they should go without until they do for themselves or those actually responsible for them do it.

Jesus the Christ was willing to pay for your refusal to provide for the greater glory of Your immortal soul.

Only the right wing prefers selfishness to promoting the general welfare.

When it comes to helping others, I follow the words of Christ. I don't support forcing you to help others. All I ask for is the same in return.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't equate to handing some freeloader unwilling to do for him/herself someone else's money.

simply having that Bad attitude is wrong.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[sparky]

When it comes to helping others, I follow the words of Christ. I don't support forcing you to help others. All I ask for is the same in return.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't equate to handing some freeloader unwilling to do for him/herself someone else's money.

handup vs handout
most would agree

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and increase the minimum wage.

El paso Island?

 

[Jitss617]

You apparently can't make a rational argument, likely because you're not bothering to actually read my posts. The politicians are going against the components which make up the word, and previous application of the system throughout history. Social, as in Society or organization, referring to the type of control over the means of production, as in supposedly controlled by society as a whole, and Ism, referring to doctrine. The doctrine of Social Control. This is backed up by Wikipedia, and practically every dictionary.

As I said, your conflation of Socialism and Social Democracy are completely erroneous. Your acceptance of the Finland Prime-Minister's definition over that of the actual meaning and definition based on the components that make up the word is an appeal to authority or appeal to popularity fallacy, take your pick, a fallacy all the same.

Also, calling me a GOP dupe is, much like all of your arguments so far, erroneous. I'm an Anarchist.

there been 3 definitions of socialism one back in Marxist ideology before the USSR. Then the USSR became the definition of socialism. Since the 20s and the discovery that the USSR was in no way democratic, we have the newest definition of socialism, fair democratic capitalism with a good safety net. Everywhere but GOP dupe world, dupe. Read the article in Wikipedia, it agrees with every Poli SCI and history department in the world. Except liberty University I suppose.

It will never work sorry

Socialism, now defined as fair capitalism with a good safety net everywhere but GOP dupe world, works great in every other Rich modern country. Only GOP America keeps wrecking the world economy and its own middle class and infrastructure, all to save the greedy idiot GOP rich from paying taxes.

It doesn’t work veterans are begging to leave the VA for private care. All progressive towns are failing

false

It’s true sorry

 

[Jitss617]

What makes you think that Obamacare wasn't the biggest give away program to the rich that was ever passed and is owned by the Democratic party?

*****SMILE*****

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

Well it is the GOP very capitalist plan, so it's not surprising. Those people invested in big health and big Pharma are now getting used to being regulated and having their profits limited, and there will be more regulation as time goes on. It will be tinkered with forever. Until single-payer...

Why can’t everyone pay for health care

Because we have to cover the people with pre
existing conditions and are sick and the more people we get paying for insurance the better. Catastrophic care plans have been the way things are going.... We really should get single-payer as part of income taxes like every other modern country basically.

Lol we have many years of not paying for other ore existing conditions lol and millions tried to get here..

Millions are trying to get here because the country they come from have free health care lol

 

[sparky]

maybe they'll make 'birth' an existing condition then.....?

 

[Jitss617]

When it comes to whether or not Republicans care for the poor I have one word. Appalachia.
If Republicans don’t even care about other Republicans, then why would they care about anyone? Except billionaires and millionaires. That goes without saying.

I live in democrat run Boston the only people that aren’t allowed to have the opportunity to live freely are the poor, democrats have put barriers up on housing with building codes and cost restrictions that keep the poor unable to be entrepreneurs. Unions have destroyed private jobs, and bad education has caused to poor not to protest the bad guy the democrat party

Prove it or shut the fuk up.

I get so tired of your guy lying.

Besides, what are Republicans doing about the millions of destitute Republicans living in Appalachia?

How come they won't talk about helping their own?

We already know why. If they aren't billionaires, white or not, the GOP says fuk'em.

Prove it? I live there every day! Not one business is opened by a black that graduated from a Boston public school its all rich democrats opening business.

Trump is helping the Appalachia’s by deregulation, republicans only ask for freedom and liberty that’s it

 

[danielpalos]

When it comes to helping others, I follow the words of Christ. I don't support forcing you to help others. All I ask for is the same in return.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't equate to handing some freeloader unwilling to do for him/herself someone else's money.

handup vs handout
most would agree

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and increase the minimum wage.

El paso Island?

Capitalism; What is That, sayeth the national socialist right wing.

 

[Conservative65]

When it comes to helping others, I follow the words of Christ. I don't support forcing you to help others. All I ask for is the same in return.

Promoting the general welfare doesn't equate to handing some freeloader unwilling to do for him/herself someone else's money.

handup vs handout
most would agree

Let's upgrade Ellis Island and increase the minimum wage.

El paso Island?

For lefties, forcing someone else to do what they obviously refuse to personally do is that same as having done it themselves. There are plenty of examples in God's word that talk about helping others. Each example involves the one doing the giving do so voluntarily not having it taken from them because a politician or a bleeding heart wants to be able to claim they care. The easiest thing to do is spend someone else's money.

 

[danielpalos]

tax cut economics, anyone?

 

[deanrd]

It’s the Democrats who want people to starve?

Are you accusing Democrats of acting like Republicans?

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

How do you quantify "sustainability"?

Lasting, not even permanent, just lasting. As I mentioned in the post you replied to. The State naturally increases in size, evident by the Federal Register, and taxes naturally return less money the higher you raise them(The Law of Diminishing Returns), preventing the State from being able to pay for itself through said taxes, and this is accelerated through its inability to properly allocate resources due to the Economic Calculation problem. These problems have all been observed through the course of history.

We're well into our 3rd century. Its been quite sustainable. As have dozens of other governments.

Meanwhile the longest lasting Government is about 400 years, because it tends towards collapse, due to being unsustainable, for the reasons I've outlined, which you refused to address. Longest lasting Anarchy is recorded to have been a few thousand years, projected to be 9000 years, and that's not including the amount of time that people associated BEFORE the existence of the first government. Governments inevitably collapse, as they always have throughout history.

If that is how you quantify "sustainability"...few if any human endeavors are sustainable. The standard is unrealistic.

Unrealistic because the State naturally trends towards collapse and authoritarianism from the moment of its creation up to its collapse. I also gave you a comparison, which you ignored because you lack an answer to it.

 

[francoHFW]

Definitions often change especially with a term like socialism communism. I have no idea what you're talking about anymore LOL

Reasserting the same claim that you've already refuted in your own citations and which I've already refuted several times. If you're just going to keep restating this regardless of facts, then discussion is a pointless waste of time. I refuted your argument philosophically, logically, and historically. I think you're just trying to waste my time at this point.

So what what is the definition of socialism dipstick? You said ownership or regulation of business and industry. That could be anything. communism as people think of it not your ideological ideal. The Finnish prime minister knows what most people in the world do. The only people that argue as you do are GOP chumps. Cold War dinosaurs

I've already cited the dictionary definition multiple times, the definitions listed in the articles, and the definition in your own citations.

The definition I used is from the Communist Manifesto, not my own ideals. It's defined in the Manifesto and in application when implemented since defined By that Manifesto as a Society with no classes, no state, no currency, and no private property, "but with personal property".

Bernie Sanders is a socialist ocasio-cortez every other successful country. Ownership or regulation of business and industry by the government can be any place LOL

Government is inherently unsustainable, so calling any Nation "successful" is misleading. Because of government's tendency towards rapid expansion, the law of diminishing returns, and the economic calculation problem, there's no such thing as a "successful government".

Also, if you're arguing that every Nation is Socialist, that just drastically increases the number of failures Socialism has. At that point, what would you believe makes a Nation Socialist?

"Government is inherently unsustainable,"

Oh look, no counter-argument. It's like you don't have one, or something, how... completely normal for you.

That's not me, that's just another person who thinks you are totally fos... People from every viewpoint agree..... You are stuck on Marxist theory, ignoring the USSR theory of socialism and the modern definition everywhere but GOP dupe world and silly people like you, faire capitalism with a good safety net always democratic...

 

[francoHFW]

Facts and reality... Obamacare includes a 3.8% tax on the rich, and the best part of it is subsidies for the middle class and working class, and Medicaid for those with less income than $1,400 or so. Of course you have no idea what Obamacare is, just the usual brainwash.




You

A 3.8% tax on profits that went up by at least 300% for those invested in the industry while those not invested, namely the middle class, are paying the toll. Wow!!! That really hurt the rich.

*****SMILE*****

Well it is the GOP very capitalist plan, so it's not surprising. Those people invested in big health and big Pharma are now getting used to being regulated and having their profits limited, and there will be more regulation as time goes on. It will be tinkered with forever. Until single-payer...

Why can’t everyone pay for health care

Because we have to cover the people with pre
existing conditions and are sick and the more people we get paying for insurance the better. Catastrophic care plans have been the way things are going.... We really should get single-payer as part of income taxes like every other modern country basically.

Lol we have many years of not paying for other ore existing conditions lol and millions tried to get here..

Millions are trying to get here because the country they come from have free health care lol

people love coming here from shithole countries because all they want to do is work and the GOP gives them an open invitation by refusing a national ID card forever, like other modern countries with this problem have. The GOP loves the cheap labor easily bullied, and it is child's play 2 fool you dupes with stupid walls and unconstitutional harassment laws. Brainwashed functional moron.