A Nation of Thieves
- Started
- Last post
- 45 Responses
- locustsloth0
Socialism in it's essence is pooling the talents and resources of THE PEOPLE for the betterment of ALL people. All boats go up.
The end game of this capitalist experiment, left to it's own greed-motivated devices will be tyrannical rule by those who gain at any cost, leading to a rising up of those you have been under their thumb
- TheBlueOne0
Please tell federal government to get my $300Billion back from Fannie and Freddia Mac first and then we can talk about "welfare"
- HAHAHAHA!pr2
- i agree. no bailout should have occurred.********
- How many people benefitted from that per capita vs. the figures you quoted for social spending...TheBlueOne
- 300 BN divided by a few thousand versus $6 B for millions. Welfare for the rich.TheBlueOne
- We don't let the rich fail here.TheBlueOne
- did you read my comment?********
- akrokdesign0
question is can they re-brand them self and hit the target audience???
- ukit0
What do you think about what Enron did Bryce? Was that stealing?
- TheBlueOne0
"left", "right", "socialist", "capitalist"..all bullshit words that no longer describe the landscape. Map doesn't match the territory. But no go ahead continue to use them like they describe real things...
- ********0
the theories they describe sure exist, tbo. what nomenclature would you prefer?
- ukit0
Calling anything that doesn't conform to your extreme views "socialist" is pretty silly
- TheBlueOne0
Right, so the Republicans and Bush, who spent more money than any other prior government still walk around calling themselves "conservatives"...
- TheBlueOne0
And the Neo-COns are all ex-lefty trotskyites. Every single one of them. All leftists.
- TheBlueOne0
And Socialist China has embraced market capitalism. Turn on your TV. Channel 4. You can check out COmmunist CHina.
- again, the topic is wealth redistribution********
- And the government just redistributed $300 billion to the rich without blinking an eye.TheBlueOne
- no they didn't. these are large lending institutions that are crucial to our economy.********
- there's a big difference.********
- again, the topic is wealth redistribution
- TheBlueOne0
OK, you dismiss thew point about the Fed gov't bailing out Wall Street with: "i agree. no bailout should have occurred."
I dismiss your topic thusly: "I agree. There is too much social spending in the US."
You can start your next trolling thread now.
- ********0
so you agree that wealth redistribution is theft and morally reprehensible.
- No asswipe I said "There is too much social spending in the US"TheBlueOne
- Open your eyes and read what's on the screen.TheBlueOne
- How much of the money given for social spending ends up being wasted or in the pockets of those it wasn't intended for.Josev
- ********0
then you feel that wealth redistribution is justified?
which is it?
- ********0
do you agree that leaving fellow citizens homeless and hungry if you had the money to house and feed them, would be morally reprehensible?
- TheBlueOne0
God, if I ever met you in person I'd fuck you up the ass sideways with a two by four.
- how unfortunate. i don't have that much hatred for anyone else, really********
- how unfortunate. i don't have that much hatred for anyone else, really
- ********0
@gung_hoek
if you spend your own money to help them, I think that is very praiseworthy.
- but what about the question? would it be morally reprehensible to let them starve?********
- but what about the question? would it be morally reprehensible to let them starve?
- ********0
that´s not a good idea.
- ukit0
I see there being some value in it to be honest. If we don't give a hand of some sort to people at the bottom of the ladder then a lot of them will never be able to tap their full potential. It sounds corny, but some kid from a poor community could end up being the person who finds a cure for cancer, or invents a new product that helps America's competitveness, making life better for all of us. And maybe a government-funded scholarship or tax credit for his family ends up making the difference. If we don't help people make better lives for themselves our economy won't be able to realize its full potential. Obviously, there's a balance that's required, so it's not a matter of all or nothing.
- akrokdesign0
u.s is famous for not be social caring. so how can u.s then be spending too much on social things? also, what do you compare it with? what is too much? also how would less social spending result in?