Under Sanders, income and jobs would soar, economist says

ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
rocknratm said:
the only problems I can think of right now that really matter are climate change and medicine (peoples health). Government can fund organizations to work on these problems with the tax revenue under this system.

Other problems just need money and resources, which wouldnt be an issue under true progressive taxation. If any other problems need infrastructure, that can be government driven.

Can you tell me what other problems you are thinking of? A few examples would be great.

I'M just spit balling here, socialism to this extreme would never be a reality. But government isnt the enemy, its corrupt government being one in the same with corporations.

If you wouldnt mind outlining in clear terms what your view of socialism is, that would help me too. I'm open to adapting/changing my views to new input if it makes sense.
Click to expand...
If those are the only problems you can think of, I suggest a little more study.
 
Uncle Ben

Uncle Ben

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Being that was said by a "comedian", those "points" sure were comical.

1. Yes, he does mean free. To someone, the product or service will be free.
2. Nobody ever wants someone else's hard earned money. They want that hard earned money earner to pay their fair share.
3. Actually, the most prosperous countries today have high tax rates. The United States was the most prosperous when it had the highest tax rates.
4. They are when they are the ones making the laws. Wealth should not be prerequisite for power.
5. Social Security, Medicare and the Military Industrial Complex are all social programs.

That assclown is not a conservative. He's a Republican. Very big difference.

You really should get out more.
Click to expand...
Bullshit

"1. Yes, he does mean free. To someone, the product or service will be free.
2. Nobody ever wants someone else's hard earned money. They want that hard earned money earner to pay their fair share."

You can't have it both ways. I posted who is paying their fair share and how much a few days ago. Deny it and spin your garbage all you want.

His comments. To think otherwise is delusional.

UB
 
Last edited:
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
Uncle Ben said:
His comments. To think otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...
"His comments, to think otherwise, are delusional."
OR
"His comment, to think otherwise, is delusional."

I realize your propensity for stupidity is profound, but I thought I'd provide you with a few pointers in basic English grammar to help you not be so, stupid. Or perhaps help you not give off the appearance of being so stupid.
 
R

red w. blue

Well-Known Member
see4 said:
Your [top] Republican candidates will add 9 trillion to the deficit through their tax plan alone, and have most of that money funneled back to the wealthy. That is not fiscally conservative.
Click to expand...
Omloma added 10 trillion to the deficit and his hidden taxes added 10% to everything you buy except for big ticket type things. I don't know of a single fiscally conservative demoRAT.
Or a "conservative democrat" is a OXYMORON.......
 
see4

see4

Well-Known Member
red w. blue said:
Omloma added 10 trillion to the deficit and his hidden taxes added 10% to everything you buy except for big ticket type things. I don't know of a single fiscally conservative demoRAT.
Or a "conservative democrat" is a OXYMORON.......
Click to expand...
I'm sorry I don't understand stupid. You'll need to speak more clearly. (and factually)

The current administration has foot the bill for the prior administrations misappropriations and complete mishandling of budgets.
10% Hidden tax? You madam are delusional.

Being a Democrat does not mean they hold no conservative values. You should learn what Democrat, Republican, conservative and liberal means before you vomit from the brain.
 
rocknratm

rocknratm

Well-Known Member
ttystikk said:
AHHHHHHH, totally beat me to it! LMAO!
Click to expand...
they were my favorite toy as a kid.
I had a lofted bed, one night I rolled off and fell into a rubbermade full of legos. My sister gives me shit about it all the time. She says the noise it made was very memorable, lego crunching followed by a high pitched shriek.
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
rocknratm said:
they were my favorite toy as a kid.
I had a lofted bed, one night I rolled off and fell into a rubbermade full of legos. My sister gives me shit about it all the time. She says the noise it made was very memorable, lego crunching followed by a high pitched shriek.
Click to expand...
Damn straight, fuckers are nothing but sharp corners!

I'm gonna bet you never fell out of your bunk bed again, either!
 
Flaming Pie

Flaming Pie

Well-Known Member
rocknratm said:
Innovation? IMHO we dont need more inventions and scientific break throughs. We have enough technology, we have enough resources, medicine is advanced enough (cancer can be treated in different ways, high cbd treatments, going after the root cause, ect.). I think most scientists working in medicine will still work in medicine for the good of all people and because they enjoy science. Even if innovation becomes stagnant, realistically why do we need to advance any more? We dont need rapid advancement, we need a better quality of life for all people in this country. Thats what socialism has as a goal.

Lets talk about classes. People say there wont be any motivation under socialism, I dont agree. IN a socialist system, the lower class would be for people who dont work, cant work, or only want to work 8-16hrs a week. They could still sustain themselves, having guaranteed food clothing and shelter. This would be the smallest class.

The middle class would be the biggest. This would include most working people, unskilled labor more so than skilled. If you work had 16-32 hrs, you should automatically be in this class. This would be pretty kushy, with enough to have hobbies, a nice house, a nice car, ect. The upper class would be skilled or highly educated people- scientists, doctors, lawyers, ect. These people would make more than the middle class but not a lot more- only a moderate amount. Basically all jobs would land people in the middle-upper class. There would be no upper 1%. This would not be allowed, the money would be taken from anyone who earns that much and redistributed through profit sharing or taxation.

#3, we are already prosperous. We are going downhill because the rich are greedy and hoarding all the resources. These super rich are building their empires on war money, oil money, and exploitative business models. IMO socialism would generally make all decisions for the good of all people, restructuring business models through wealth redistribution across the board.
Click to expand...
16-32 hours a week for a kushy life with a nice house and nice car and hobbies?

Work, or don't work only 8-16 hours a week because they wanna and still have food and shelter?

Okay Peter pan. Lol
 
rocknratm

rocknratm

Well-Known Member
Flaming Pie said:
16-32 hours a week for a kushy life with a nice house and nice car and hobbies?

Work, or don't work only 8-16 hours a week because they wanna and still have food and shelter?

Okay Peter pan. Lol
Click to expand...
why not set the bar high? Im talking idealism here. if you work 40hrs a week, and sleep 8 a day, you work 1/3 of your waking life. 1/3 of your awake hours to slave labor (a little less that 1/4 of your total time on this earth including sleep time- 168/40=4.2, or 40/160 fraction 1/4). Fuck that.
I cut my hours at work to 16, the union minimum. If the union wasnt such a bitch id still have benefits at 16 hrs too. Although I probably spend 20 hrs a week doing grow stuff, still hand water, not to mention harvest time....
 
ttystikk

ttystikk

Well-Known Member
rocknratm said:
why not set the bar high? Im talking idealism here. if you work 40hrs a week, and sleep 8 a day, you work 1/3 of your waking life. 1/3 of your awake hours to slave labor (a little less that 1/4 of your total time on this earth including sleep time- 168/40=4.2, or 40/160 fraction 1/4). Fuck that.
I cut my hours at work to 16, the union minimum. If the union wasnt such a bitch id still have benefits at 16 hrs too. Although I probably spend 20 hrs a week doing grow stuff, still hand water, not to mention harvest time....
Click to expand...
Unions are not tools to use to encourage or force management to accept lazy employees. There has to be enough people working, and care about what they do, for the company to be competitive.

I don't think the choice has to be one or the other. That would again fall into the politics of division, control and power.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top