Obama must've been kicking himself after saying that on camera; a liberal politican should never utter the phrase 'spread the wealth' if they desire to be elected to office; the contextual connotations are too strong, and too easy to manipulate by the opposing party.
Anyone else see the problem with Socialism?!? You loses the incentive to want to (invent) or (create wealth.) Why bother when people know 3/4 of the money they make from it is taken away.
Everyone ends up living in a cardboard box waiting for Government Cheese handouts. No Thanx!
@Tanarus20 So what about the forms of socialism that want industry to be controlled by worker cooperatives? Surely the workers have more incentives under such a system than they do under capitalism?
@wowsa0 It's a flawed system proven over time and time again. Capitalism really is the best system ever created. The problem with it is that it needs to well policed at the top.
Once Socialism is installed, then they'll push slowly towards communism. We ALL know that story. Americans love their personal freedoms to much. It's in their DNA.
@Tanarus20 Give me one democratic socialist country that has been pushed 'slowly towards communism'? All the communist dictatorships I know about were created out of violent revolutions.
And libertarian socialism is not a 'flawed system proven time and time again' because it has rarely been tried. This doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work either, but you can't dismiss it out of hand like you can with state centered socialism.
@wowsa0 Venezuela was fine until Chaves came along. Now I see they Ration power 3 hours every day. Which is ironic considering they have all that oil there.
@Tanarus20 A little while after I posted I did think you might come back to me with Venezuela. But I think you'll agree that it's the exception rather than the rule, as you suggested. And I admit I don't know a lot about how Venezuela functions but Chavez was democratically elected wasn't he? Even if his policies are a bit extreme. Tell me if I'm wrong.
@wowsa0 "Chavez was democratically elected wasn't he?" Yes he was. Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws. He's in the process now trying to set up where he cant be voted out of office.
Socialists feel the need to distribute wealth (punish success) Ohh it SOUNDS good, "distribute wealth" that's how they sell it. But what you end up with EVERY TIME is a country full of people living in cardboard boxes waiting for their government Rationed Cheese.
@Tanarus20 'Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws' Isn't that the whole point of being elected? But yeah I get your point, I'll let you have Venezuela as a democratic country which is veering towards the kind of socialism that has done so badly in russia and other such places. But that doesn't change the fact that most of these places were founded on a revolution. Obama is hardly Chavez, even if he wanted full nationalised medicine, that'd only take him to the level of the UK.
@wowsa0 "Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws' Isn't that the whole point of being elected?"
Not to the point where people don't have a say in the matter anymore. I don't know about you. But I'm not big on him "Mandating" or (Forcing) us to purchasing health care.
@Tanarus20 No I can see big problems with the government forcing individuals to buy healthcare from private companies, I'm British, and I support our system of a taxpayer funded NHS which is free at the point of delivery to anyone, they don't even have to be a british citizen. If you ask for treatment, you will get it, free of charge. Of course there are problems with it, maybe it should be less centralised and bureaucratic, with doctors and nurses having more of a say in its management.
@wowsa0 "So what about the forms of socialism that want industry to be controlled by worker cooperatives? Surely the workers have more incentives under such a system than they do under capitalism?"
What if you came up with an idea no one else thought of and got hella rich from it. They'll take 3/4 of your wealth from you. Same with buisnes...it's BS!
it's simple: you hire some armed thugs and tell them what you want. They go out and steal from the rich and share it honestly around with you. Because these thieves are men of their word, they would never take on enormous debts to fight gang wars and dump the debt load on your children. Because you hired them to steal from the rich. I think it is a sound plan, can't see anything going wrong with that.
So if we take this analogy as valid are we supposed to assume that the poorest people in society are the ones who've consumed the most? While the rich are those who've saved sensibly? That doesn't seem right.
@wowsa0 I think its more explaining how there will always be poor people and they will always consume, not that individuals latch on like a parasite to a wealthy person and take everything from them. The poor do make up the majority and its likely that they do consume more things like food and buy more tvs and things like that. And wealthy people do tend to save quite alot, just saying. Good question, but i dont think thats what they were trying to imply :)
@wowsa0 Never. Its the millions of single mums that spend more than the lone millionaire. There will always be thousands and thansands of poor for the wealthy and to take wealthy peoples hard earned money away to give to everyone, not just single moms that work hard, thats what they are saying. Some millionaires are born, yes, but some make it on their own. Why punish thier success to give it to bums. And I dont mean the deserving poor i mean bums which is where most of their money goes.
@cmiller8492 But how do you decide who is a 'bum' and who isn't? It's very difficult to do. It's very difficult to determine whether someone is trying hard enough to improve their situation or not. With a strong welfare state you are going to get people receiving welfare who maybe shouldn't do, I'll accept that, but the alternative, no welfare state, is even worse, because people who are poor through no fault of their own will not get the services they need for a healthy happy existence.
@wowsa0 Bum-sleeps all day, stays up all night, does not work, squanders money and shirks responsibilites. Deserving welfare recipient- Wakes up early and goes to work, handles all their responsibilities, takes care of and feeds their children, and if they dont have enough to get by doing all of this, then they get what they NEED, not a $3000 dollar check a month.
@cmiller8492 So if you were in charge then you'd be able to determine who should get what and how much better than all the other bureaucrats would you? I think we have to accept that if we want to have welfare (which in my opinion we do) then people are going to get it who maybe shouldn't get it. That's a price worth paying.
All thinking people are embarrassed by using this ridiculous adolescent skit to try & make a political point in favor of protecting personal wealth. Only a petulent child would join in reducing a discussion of such importance to elementary school level, especially since it twists their own "logic". It shows the selfish person concerned with property rights eating the entire pie. Is that actually the point? That the selfish who're concerned with losing personal wealth actually get it all?
How dare we try to protect personal wealth! lol how dare we?! ;-)
All that personal wealth that people earn for themselves... it's so selfish for them to try to keep others from taking it. In fact it's wrong... they should just give all the fruits of their labor up for others who aren't fortunate enough to have the will to labor as well or as efficiently.
In fact... pass me your pie tripfunk, before I get the govt to take it from you.
@sailcats77: You can't scare me with the government - it's been weakened to the point of being destroyed already. Now Wall St. - that's scary. Get control of them & you've got something.
@tripfunkmonster The government is weak? Which government are you talking about? It can't be the US one, I mean, it can somehow imprison 25% of ALL PRISONERS ON EARTH, and it extorts its population every year, with resistance being hopelessly crushed. Also, the government enforces laws that create barriers to entry for small business, in favor of big businesses that practically control the government. It sure would be nice if they couldn't do that. The government should be weak, but it isn't.
@1000g2g3g4g800999: I don't know if it's semantics or what...our gov't is supposed to be the people. That's democracy. Corporations have taken over . THAT'S my point. Wall St. tells us gov't is too strong so we weaken it. Then, they tell us it's still too strong so we weaken it more. Then, they say it's the enemy so we weaken it more. Each time, corps grab more power until we no longer have democracy. That's where we are now. Corps elect our representatives & we wonder why we're not represented.
That's public services fault for allowing big business in that case. Dont blame the player blame the game. There shouldn't be public services like their shouldn't be welcoming jobs for illegals. Dont fix the player fix the game. The rules are all fucked up.
To quote the trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt: "We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth". You're just being knee-jerk like every other black-and-white absolutist that thinks disagreeing means supporting the polar opposite.
.
If there is no power to buy, then THEY become the power, and people who exploit oppressed people and children can't be trusted
.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
The socialist method the EU employs throughout Healthcare costs more per person, doesn't cover everyone and is ranked below the US.... oh wait I got that all backwards, it is cheaper, covers everyone and damn near all Europe and Asia are beating the US in healthcare...
Socialism without Freedom is Slavery and Brutality
But
Freedom without Socialism is Privilege and Injustice.
Socialism is not evil but, just like capitalism, it's not good at 100%, you always need a balance
@A16AdamWalker If you think that the US has a free market in health care, then you are completely ignorant. Through over regulation and bad incentives, the US has managed to create a system that is actually worse than pure socialism. That is not to say that socialism is good by any stretch of the imagination.
@obtree Well done for proving your ignorance as well, along with your inability to understand english. If you read what I said, I stated that there needed to be a balance between the two ideologies, quoting Mikhail Bakunin in the process.
Considering your rather smug, better than you, attitude I may well be wasting my time in arguing, but all I will say is whenever you point a finger, there are 3 pointing back.
@A16AdamWalker You said that health care in the US is expensive and it doesn't cover enough people, which is true. You then went on to say that capitalism isn't good at 100%, implying that the problems with health care in the US are due to too much capitalism. If you think that, then you are obviously ignorant to the facts. US health care is not a free market; far from it.
@A16AdamWalker Your appeal to the middle ground is also intellectually poor. Consider: Bill wants to remove 5 fingers; George wants to remove 2 fingers; Brian wants to remove 0 fingers. Bill and Brian represent the extremes in this example. Do you wish to take the middle ground and side with George?
God Americans are stupid. The biggest welfare recipients are on Wall Street and yet they've already got plenty of pie. But somehow they're a protected species.
he who controls the machinery of capitalism makes slaves of everyone else. how does one make their own pie when one doesn't own the ground on which to grow it's ingredients? he must settle for making pie for someone at a wage, then buying one of the pies at a price equal to the value of his wage.
This is the problem in discussing anything that isn’t capitalism. Capitalists have twisted words and/or definitions around to such an extent that ordinary people with ordinary incomes immediately think: "Oh my god, their going to steal the shirt off my back."
In reality, such a system merely advocates a pooling the excess (of those that have such excess) for those that have nothing.
It is exaggeration bordering on slanderous fabrication that should not be tolerated.
A more correct analogy would be if Penn took a bite (perhaps two if they weren’t that generous) of Teller’s piece of pie, which he then let Teller finish. In the case of the several multi-millionaires and billionaires in the US, it would be like taking a single bite out of the entire pie (or a single piece out of said entire pie in regard to millionaires).
Penn gets something and Teller certainly isn’t going to starve.
@Kushx0J You didn't criticize them right at all. You're just making shit up.
Oh ho, see what I did there? Statements not immediately followed by the word "because" are worthless because opinions and facts are not the same thing.
I'll become a libertarian tomorrow if I ever see a small group of them refusing to collect their Social Security checks or any type of government benefit that's offered to them. I'll also do so if someday one of their houses is burning down and they tell the fire department not to come, or if they get robbed they don't report the crime (just hiring a private detective is still okay, though, but no calling 911). Until that day I'll always have my doubts about their sincerity.
@danning1 You are either confusing libertarianism with anarchy or you are intentionally creating a strawman argument. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance instead of malice.
@jfuex Refusing to collect Social Security checks or accepting any government benefits would not make them (or anyone else) anarchists at all. Remember that most libertarians--including Milton Friedman--have admitted that defense and law enforcement are two things that could never be privatized. But really, when you think about it, at heart most liberrtarians are hypocrites. They gladly accept a lot of gov. benefits that they rail against in their various forums. I stand by what I said.
@danning1 The flaw in your argument is trying to paint anyone who calls themself a libertarian a hypocrite by comparing their actions with the ideal at one extreme of the ideology. Very few people, if any are 100% anything. That is, I wouldn't call someone who considered themselves an environmentalist a hypocrite because they drove a car. Not everyone in a movement is at the extreme.
@danning1 Also, many libertarians would gladly opt out of Social Security and similar entitlement programs if they could fully opt out. That is, if they didn't have to pay into the system either and could redirect those funds to private insurance or retirement accounts. As for fire and police service, no libertarian I know thinks those shouldn't be government services. Libertarian doesn't mean NO Government (that's anarchy and your strawman) it means LIMITED Government.
1) those in higher income brackets don't spend as much as those in lower income (in terms of a percentage of their income), thus you get more stimulative bang-for-your-buck when you give tax cuts to lower income brackets.
2) there is less marginal cost to those who experience a tax hike in higher income brackets vs. lower income brackets.
3) Wealth is not solely the product of hard work and merit. Inheritance tax is a case in point.
1) yes, this is true, but where does the money that they don't spend go. It just doesn't sit around. Banks? somewhere. What does that bank do with the money? It lends it to people like you to get a car, a house, etc.
2) Wealth is maliable. It has no dedicated place or form. If you hike taxes on income to high, you'll see it leave.
3) Where does inherited money come from? You're parents', grandparents', etc. hard work and merit. So it really does come from those things.
No. 100 people all have a pie, and as some begin taking pie for themselves as they take away tables and chair legs from the others, making them unable to hold onto their pies very well. Soon 10 people have over 70 pies because they took people's ability to maintain their share by weakening their tables and giving parts to people in different rooms. When the people without pie want to get some peices back, they're told it's pie redistribution and bad, so they can't have the pie back like before.
@nurb101 And the only that what you described happens is when you allow, through legal laws, the ability to manipulate it all. Tax holes, and tax loops. Some of the biggest earners in america work for the poor to help them out. How does that happen? Owner of Good will donations making over 750k per year, head of plan parenting makes over 1 million per year. And these are who are leading us to help the poor. Redistribution of wealth only makes the wealthy more wealthy.
@nurb101 those twenty people didn't get their pies by taking them from the rest. They got them by creating them. Two hundred years ago there was less than one pie to split among those 100 people.
Lets dump the analogies. 60 years ago the majority of Americans controled the majority of the wealth, since the late 70's, we've lost millions of jobs and 93% of the wealth got "redistributed" upwards to 20% of Americans as the middle-class shrinks, and they have you convinced you and I are greedy for expecting people who have 93% of the money to pitch in for the country.
.
They want wealth to "trickle down" and sacrifice to "trickle up". I'm not giving up anything for their tax breaks
@nurb101 Wrong. Wealth was not "redistributed" upwards. The bottom 80% is better off than it has ever been.
Also, do you think that the 93% all goes to private jets and mansions? No, it's tied up in infrastructure. You make it sound like the money would be better spent somewhere else, but its not money at all; its factories, businesses, machinery, mines, stores.
Ha! The middle class lost majority control of the nation's wealth and now has 25 people competing for every available job that cannot support a home and family on a single income anymore and you say it's better off?. The corporate and financial sectors have recorded historically high profits in a poor economy, and GE gets an 8 BILLION $ tax rebate despite making 14 billion in profit, yet we're told it's us that need to sacrifice local services while tax money goes to their rebates.
@nurb101 I'm not arguing for corporate bailouts and tax loopholes. I think the rich should pay an equal share of their income as the poor. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary; obviously I don't agree with that. Neither do I agree with a "progressive" tax system, that gives the wealthy an incentive to hide their money overseas.
And people are better off. 20 years ago almost nobody had access to a computer. Food costs as a percentage of income have never been lower.
You're confusing advancement in technology to upward mobility. Food has gotten cheaper because the quality went down and we're importing foods from china and brazil without tariffs which undercut American farmers, making them rely on gov't subsidies. Shopping for healthy, quality food is still higher priced. the US used to be the most upwardly mobile, now we're second least since the 80's, not better off.
Buffet says the richest like him need to pay more because they're doing so well.
@nurb101 The rich would pay more. 10% of a higher income is more than 10% of a lower income.
Advancements in technology improve our standard of living. Why would I exclude them? Ask your parents or grandparents about what they ate as children. Food is of better quality, lower price, and more variety than ever before, thanks mostly to advancements in technology.
What you say about upward mobility is completely wrong. Thomas Sowell has written some brilliant works that I recommend you read.
Also, you mentioned you're against loopholes and bailouts and told to be against them, but the same people call enforcement of any sort of regulation or policy to stop businesses from getting to "too big to fail" communism and that you're telling business what to do. Well intentioned cons like yourself are being manipulated to vote against your own best interests by these people saying there's a problem for your vote, but then stopping the solution.
And that's the problem, if the anti-trust acts already on the books were enforced, they wouldn't get "too big to fail" and hold the country hostage in the first place and their lobbyists couldn't pay the politicians to give them bailouts.
@nurb101 Nothing is "too big to fail". That is propaganda thrown around by those lobbyists. Allowing them to fail is much less damaging than carrying them on the backs of the taxpayer and giving them no disincentive for failure. Equally damaging are the arbitrary, immoral, and stupid antitrust laws. They were thought up by the same kind of people coined the term "too big to fail", and implemented to prop up companies that were too inept to compete.
If that were true, then president Bush wouldn't have given Walstreet a bailout after they threatened economic ruin if we didn't "socialize" their losses
@nurb101 Right, because Bush was a champion of the free market and Libertarians everywhere. Oh, wait...
Listen, if you're going to try and debate someone, maybe do a little research on the topic you are debating before you do. And by research, I don't mean memorizing talking points from retards like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky.
corporations aren't interested in capitalism or libertarianism, they're paying politicians to give them what they want: More for themselves by any means neccisary. If they cared about capitalism they wouldn't make the US depend almost entirely on the oppressive nature of communism for cheap labor that don't have rights.
@nurb101 If there are no politicians or bureaucrats to bribe, then corporations are forced to provide us with the things we need and want in order to make their profits.
Sweatshops in China and other developing countries. Nobody in the US would ever work for 12 hours with little or no breaks in harsh working conditions and expect to only make a few pennies. However, those jobs are the most sought after, highest paying, and best working conditions available in those countries.
@nurb101 Child labor is also acceptable. The children there are going to be working, whether it's in a sweatshop, or as a prostitute or whatever. I would much rather they work in a relatively safe, clean sweatshop.
The working conditions in the third world are the same as ours were before we had developed. As they develop and work themselves out of poverty their living standards will improve too. The "evil" corporations that invest in that country are providing the leg up that they need.
Are you kidding me? Are you defending the exploitation of children by a society that knows such a thing is immoral and funding the communist government oppressing them? Nothing will change, the corporations that opperate there (Yahoo) actually helped China track down and imprison a democracy advocate because they don't want conditions to improve; people with rights are bad for profit.
.
If you're OK with that, you can't complain about communism or job outourcing without being a hypocrit
@nurb101 I'm not complaining about job outsourcing. Since allowing international companies to open businesses is not a trait of communism, I have no need to complain about that either.
Things already have changed. The conditions there have vastly improved. China is now a second world country. The government has been forced to loosen its grip somewhat, and I expect that to continue.
You can't complain about communism and still advocate for wealth redistribution without being a hypocrite.
"wealth redistribution" is vague buzzword includes social security for old folks and veteran benefits. Marxist communism is focused on no private funds or property where all things are held collectively. No candidate outside of the communist party advocates for that, so calling it "communism" is generalizing talk-radio hyperbole.
.
Am I right in assuming you're christian and a believer in Ayn Rand?
@nurb101 What is hypocritical about you is you share the communist's irrational hatred and contempt for the wealthy. You don't understand that wealth is not a pie to be divided and distributed. It is created.
You are afraid of corporations because they can bribe the government and gain control over you, but if the government had no control over you then there would be no power for the corporations to buy.
No. Actually if your 100 people have pie, some eat it all up, others trade their pie for drugs, and others go out and figure out how to make more pies. Some get so good at making pies, they make it available to the ones who ate all their's at lower cost than they otherwise could've gotten it for. But those with less see those with more and get jealous, and figure they deserve some of that pie the producers produced, and get govt to take it from the producers.
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between serfdom or starvation.
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
"NON AGRESSION PRINCIPLE and no libertarian would EVER allow a state to violate the rights of others."
Oh, us oligarchs wouldn't initiate force.. We'd simply collude(freedom of association) to deprive you of what's necessary to live.. Then, in order to survive and stay consistent as Libertarians, you'd either agree to forfeit all your freedom to one of us or refuse and starve to death.
No force was necessary. Just a better understanding of Libertarianism on our part.
In Communism the baker doesn't know how much flour is worth or how much he needs, so he uses his political connections to acquire and hoard as much as he can, leaving other bakers with nothing. He then bakes a pie and it is divided out equally to everyone. However, because there aren't enough pies being baked, everybody's share of the pie is a mere crumb, except for the political class who get first crack.
@JakDerrida In capitalism the baker first pays for all of the ingredients, the electricity to bake the pie, and any employees who help out (with previous pies I guess). Then he bakes the pie. He then uses the large majority of that pie to pay for the next batch of pies, and he gets to eat the remainder.
@JakDerrida In socialism, the capitalist baker bakes a pie, then the IRS takes about half of it and the government gives it to people to entice them to reelect them. Yes, some of those people are incapable of baking their own pies, but the baker already gives a large portion of his pies to the needy. This is in addition to all of the good the baker is doing to all of his employees and clients just by running his bakery.
In socialism (if you consider taxes socialism), the baker pays taxes in higher proportion than those that make less. And in exchange his customers have roads to drive there. His rights to the bakery are enforced by government which avoids solicitation and threats from competiters much like the outdoor markets of third world countries.. His customers can also be content that the food won't kill them as a minimum standard enforced by government, which benefits the baker more than he pays
@JakDerrida In many cases, big business takes advantage of public services in an attempt to externalize their costs. I recently read a brilliant piece by Roderick T. Long at the Mises institute, where he goes into great detail about that, but while I agree with you on the problem, I differ on the solution. We both want everybody to pay their fair share, but my argument is that the free market is the best way to accomplish that.
@TheLibertarianzy Well, when I see how big the difference is between rich people an poor people in the USA I have serious questions about the wealth distribution. America is promoting selfishness. Money before the people.
No, America promotes self-ownership and self-government, what you make is yours and your property is respected by everyone even the allmighty government.
You think people is before money, I agree I, Im people therefore you must give me all your money.
I always wondered how our country could be spiraling out of control so badly, then I read these comments. So many people in this country are just so oblivious to the truth, you just want more for your selves. What ever happened to actually working for it?
why is it so hard for all you people to understand something so simple....is it really so hard to get 2 complete thoughts in your pointy little heads? corporate welfare AND AND AND social welfare are BOTH disgusting...to only see one side or the other indicates about a kindergarten level of brain activity
So by taxing people in the top 2% income class (over $250,000/year)* more than the people in the bottom 10% (less than $10,500/year)*, that means that the people in the Bottom 10% are spending all of the money the upper 2% are making! Wow, you'd think they'd have more to show for it. Wait... unless this terrible analogy is a misrepresentation of the facts to trick undereducated people into thinking that the poorest individuals in this country are well off.
Bottom line - when our country was at its best the tax rate for the super rich was above 70% During the Clinton administration we balanced our budget and grew jobs. Ever sense we began to lower taxes and spend more we have consistently lost jobs and lowered the income of the middle class. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. sure am glad I was born rich...
@harr7959 bottom line is that allowing people to keep more of the money they earn is not only moral but it also stimulates the economy. The reason is simple. If people have more money, they spend it, invest it, put it in the bank, etc. which leads to growth.
Clinton benefited by 1) having the tech bubble which grew under his administration and 2) having a Repub Congress which put the brakes on a lot of spending.
This is the worst demonstration of Socialism. Socialism simply means common owner ship, the people who produce get equal shares of what they produced. Socialism does not mean if your lazy you will get as much money as the rest, these gentlemen above got their facts horribly wrong and their supporting the propaganda that is created by Fox News.
Why the fuck didn't he bring this up when Bush or Reagan borrowed money to give to their friends??
Seriously, why the fuck do people only bring up this analogy when the poor cry for help but when CEOs want bailouts for giant fucking bonuses(WITHOUT CONDITIONS), Penn hides with his fucking tail between his legs??
Why the fuck does Penn trash the Catholic Church but says he's too fucking scared to trash on Muslims??
@JakDerrida No I'm pretty sure there was plenty of opposition to it. perhaps you just chose to not notice it because it didn't suit your own agenda. Maybe you were too busy watching Hannah Montana
@JakDerrida, you obviously haven't seen the full episode of Penn and Teller on taxes. There not specifically talking about obama, but the progressive tax. They also attack the bailout.
"Penn did object to the bailouts. Most libertarians did."
Actually, he definitely did not.. Go ahead and find a quote or video where he was objecting to the bailouts.
"Get a job you clown."
I actually do have a job and have grossed 6 figures this year and last. And despite paying a higher tax rate than maybe a single mother working at a fast food restaurant just to get by, I've somehow saved alot of money and do not feel the need to portray myself as being victimized by them
@JakDerrida It's because more often than not the poor will be black or brown people, while the rich are, again more often than not, white. And while I realize that white people are not as racist as they were 60 years ago, they believe that blacks and browns must WORK for what they want - only White people are allowed to benefit freely from America. This is, after all, their country.
@ejbelton Welfare is the big problem in that it creates a permanent underclass since if you pay people to stay poor, they tend to stay poor. Welfare was mostly centered around black communities. Nice way to keep minorities poor and dependant so they won't rock the boat.
So it's not just any old whitey who's the problem, it's the ones in power.
Poverty was going down before welfare. After? That came to a dead stop.
if you're talking about GM accepting the fact that the gtovernment owned 60% of them, you must realize the businessman's point of view.
there is no way, with the labor unions and the cost of labor, that if GM failed, any start up could ever compete with foreign car makers. the car industry would be done in america, except for ford, and chrysler and a few other unknowns. the jobs lost would stay lost. forever. the CEOs knew this.
I was addressing giving bailouts to the banks which went directly to enormous bonuses..
I found both bailouts to be necessary.. But what was unnecessary was alleged free marketeers crying out that the bailouts should be given without conditions to make sure they don't give themselves giant bonuses for destroying the economy, which they did.
Meanwhile, Penn hid with his tail between his legs.
well you're right on that, but penn and teller focused on the 'poor' receiving money, because the money given to the CEOs for bailouts are chump change compared to welfare, SS, and medicare costs, as well as all wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
i dont know that it was cowardice, and i bet they do an episode of bullshit on bailouts (have they already done one?) this season.
and hey, even i would be scared to trash muslims if i was a public figure.
You Americans know nothing of socialism. I find it hard to understand this instinctive fear of the collective financing of social welfare. It seems that you believe that taxation is an intrusion on what you percieve as liberty. I live in sweden, and thanks to the fact that I never have to worry about not affording health-care or a decent education I have real oppertunities to pursue the life I want. It seems to me that Americans have all the the options in the world but only 1 % can afford it
@jojakorn You see if we look at Greece, France, and England we see that they are having huge finacial problems to point where there is riating in the streets, in the case of France the people are attacking officers and setting cars and buildings on fire b/c the govt wants to increase the retirment age from 65 to 67 even though they will still get full benefits. In the US you keep the money that you have worked hard for and do with your own money as you please instead of relying on govt.
@maskedphrogg Out market may not be as free as it once was, in that you are correct. No thanks to govt. See socialism allows the govt to make many choices for you, and it is not working out to well in Europe as I have stated. Taking more from someone just b/c they have more is not right, would you not like to have more of your own hard earned money to spend as you see fit and not a govt you may or may not agree with?
In your earlier post you gave the impression that tax policy in the US was equitable to those that pay it and expenditures made from tax revenue are all appropriate. I disagree. In much the same manner that Europe inappropriately taxes it's citizens for expenses the citizenry would be better purchasing out-of-pocket, US is taxing it's citizenry into outright bankruptcy. Payroll with-holding and currency inflation both aid in masking this inappropriate taxation.
Socialism has been working great in Europe. The average GDP per capital of the european countries are so much higher then America. Secondly if you look at Switzerland, Scandinavia and Holland which are the most socialist countries you will see that the health of their citizens is the highest in the world, that the gap between rich and poor is incredibly low. That nearly the whole population can read and write and you will see that their economies are really stable.
@rutgerh9 Also you are lying to yourself if you think Europe is financially ok, b/c last time I checked there are riots in Greece, Fance has been shut down, Ireland takes a bailout (paid for by Germany) and Spain has an unemployment rate of 18%. If you call that growth then I think you might want to recheck what growth really means.
Well obviously you dont know anything about the bail out. The bailout is a loan but they only way to get that loan is for the European governments to stand be the back up in case Greece or Ireland fails to pay back the entire loan. Riots happen in every single country.... and it doesnt necessarily mean that the government is bad. Secondly America has a waaaay bigger unemployment rate then Spain. Thirdly I never said anything about growth i said stable...
@rutgerh9 US unemployment 9.6%, Spain 20.7% (spain has waaaay bigger unemployment). The US population was very small in comparison to China, when the US started out it sailed passed China. Japan has the biggest debt in the world. China pays its workers about $3 a day, are using more unevironmentally friendly fuel like coal, and kill children if a couple has more than one child.
Wrong answer, Spain counts the people who are unemployed however America only counts the people who are unemployed for less then 3 years or something (Dont know the exact number of years).
@rutgerh9 US real unemployment 16%, Spain 20.7% sorry Spain still wins. See when a country has been found supplying weapons, money, and other supplies to terrorist groups that attack another country, yeah that is still a reason to attack the supply country, b/c odds are the terrorists might have a base there.
@rutgerh9 See when a country requires a bailout, it means the country was doing a terrible job at controling its taxpayers money, and yes the US also is doing a terrible job at controlling its taxpayers money. Also what happens when a country if it can't pay back its loan, if it has inflated its money to point where it is useless.
If Ireland or Greece cant pay back the money the european countries which stand granted for it will pay it back. I doubt it that the Euro will ever decline (extremely) in worth because of inflation.
@rutgerh9 So you mean if a country mismanages its money to the point of bankruptcy others country, mostly Germany, have to foot the bill. Thats a little unfair to the citizens of the other countries who have to give their tax dollars to countries who screwed up big time. And seeing the way things are going now, after Greece and Ireland, and soon Spain, I don't think there is going to be enough money support another bailout.
No, Greece and Irland have agreed to cut heavy in the spendings and get their country health again. Germany hasnt paid anything to Ireland or Greece.....
@rutgerh9 Very wrong friend, Germany paid a lot for the bailouts given to both Greece and Irland. Also last time I checked Greece is trying to cut its spending and the people are setting cars and police on fire, and rioting. Not doing to well over there. By the by Beck predicted the Greek problems and the riots.
@jojakorn Bill gates started his company from the ground up, without govt aid or welfare programs. See in the US we have this thing where we lilke to keep what we earn and spend our money as we see fit. What is more in the US you have greater chance at succeding b/c of the US's free market, as did Bill gates and many others. In the US we like options and choices, giving us only govt options is something we don't want, b/c socialism is not working out in Europe.
Apparently US denizens only prefer the appearance of supporting choice. Actually making choices is like work so they prefer for someone else to make the choice for them.
have you ever been in Europe? or do you get your facts from Fox news???
Socialism is making sure that YOU get at least a minimum pay but of you go capitalist style
the companies who are FORCED BY LAW TO MAKE PROFIT decide what they pay you and since so many people dont have a job the pay will be extremely low. So thank socialism that you can afford a computer or that your parent could afford a computer for you and something to eat everyday.
@rutgerh9 Wrong, companies are NOT FORCED BY LAW TO MAKE PROFIT, see if that were true then no company would go out of business. Now lets see over last 100 years, which country became the most powerful and most rich in the world, thats right the US with its evil capitalist system, then over the past few decades our system has been pushed to a mores socalistic system, not completley mind you, and now we are not doing to well.
Yes, companies or obliged to forced to make profit and companies go out of business all the time and have to pay their share holders money. The most powerful country is USA because of the amount of people. Their not the richest, they have the biggest dept in the world, secondly China is richer and is becoming more powerful. Your not doing well because Capitalist (Bush) went to war for no reason except to make the weapon companies rich.
Misleading and stupid. I hope you at least watched the original episode.
CloudFr0g 8 months ago
Bullshit's episode was actually explaining TAXES in general. Lame video.
RenderGee 8 months ago
This from the guy who did a show on how fast food is good for you. Yeah just look at him...
joshuancts 8 months ago
@joshuancts actually the show was on how fast food is not as bad as the american public are being scared into believing.
illuminatioracle 8 months ago
Obama must've been kicking himself after saying that on camera; a liberal politican should never utter the phrase 'spread the wealth' if they desire to be elected to office; the contextual connotations are too strong, and too easy to manipulate by the opposing party.
ExEverest10 8 months ago
Why doesn't Teller keep 70% of his pie each time?? Who knows... Maybe it's a shitty straw man argument.
Meroin 8 months ago
Clearly economics can be explained with pie.
MrFriendlyFella 8 months ago
Anyone else see the problem with Socialism?!? You loses the incentive to want to (invent) or (create wealth.) Why bother when people know 3/4 of the money they make from it is taken away.
Everyone ends up living in a cardboard box waiting for Government Cheese handouts. No Thanx!
Tanarus20 9 months ago
@Tanarus20 So what about the forms of socialism that want industry to be controlled by worker cooperatives? Surely the workers have more incentives under such a system than they do under capitalism?
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 It's a flawed system proven over time and time again. Capitalism really is the best system ever created. The problem with it is that it needs to well policed at the top.
Once Socialism is installed, then they'll push slowly towards communism. We ALL know that story. Americans love their personal freedoms to much. It's in their DNA.
Tanarus20 8 months ago
@Tanarus20 Give me one democratic socialist country that has been pushed 'slowly towards communism'? All the communist dictatorships I know about were created out of violent revolutions.
And libertarian socialism is not a 'flawed system proven time and time again' because it has rarely been tried. This doesn't mean it's guaranteed to work either, but you can't dismiss it out of hand like you can with state centered socialism.
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 Venezuela was fine until Chaves came along. Now I see they Ration power 3 hours every day. Which is ironic considering they have all that oil there.
Tanarus20 8 months ago
@Tanarus20 A little while after I posted I did think you might come back to me with Venezuela. But I think you'll agree that it's the exception rather than the rule, as you suggested. And I admit I don't know a lot about how Venezuela functions but Chavez was democratically elected wasn't he? Even if his policies are a bit extreme. Tell me if I'm wrong.
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 "Chavez was democratically elected wasn't he?" Yes he was. Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws. He's in the process now trying to set up where he cant be voted out of office.
Socialists feel the need to distribute wealth (punish success) Ohh it SOUNDS good, "distribute wealth" that's how they sell it. But what you end up with EVERY TIME is a country full of people living in cardboard boxes waiting for their government Rationed Cheese.
Tanarus20 8 months ago
@Tanarus20 'Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws' Isn't that the whole point of being elected? But yeah I get your point, I'll let you have Venezuela as a democratic country which is veering towards the kind of socialism that has done so badly in russia and other such places. But that doesn't change the fact that most of these places were founded on a revolution. Obama is hardly Chavez, even if he wanted full nationalised medicine, that'd only take him to the level of the UK.
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 "Soon as he was elected he started changing the laws' Isn't that the whole point of being elected?"
Not to the point where people don't have a say in the matter anymore. I don't know about you. But I'm not big on him "Mandating" or (Forcing) us to purchasing health care.
Tanarus20 8 months ago
@Tanarus20 No I can see big problems with the government forcing individuals to buy healthcare from private companies, I'm British, and I support our system of a taxpayer funded NHS which is free at the point of delivery to anyone, they don't even have to be a british citizen. If you ask for treatment, you will get it, free of charge. Of course there are problems with it, maybe it should be less centralised and bureaucratic, with doctors and nurses having more of a say in its management.
wowsa0 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wowsa0 "So what about the forms of socialism that want industry to be controlled by worker cooperatives? Surely the workers have more incentives under such a system than they do under capitalism?"
What if you came up with an idea no one else thought of and got hella rich from it. They'll take 3/4 of your wealth from you. Same with buisnes...it's BS!
Tanarus20 8 months ago
it's simple: you hire some armed thugs and tell them what you want. They go out and steal from the rich and share it honestly around with you. Because these thieves are men of their word, they would never take on enormous debts to fight gang wars and dump the debt load on your children. Because you hired them to steal from the rich. I think it is a sound plan, can't see anything going wrong with that.
modelmark 9 months ago
Penn is a great magician and showman...and a shitty analyst. A strawman built by a semi-famous performer is still a strawman.
cmakaioz 9 months ago 2
So if we take this analogy as valid are we supposed to assume that the poorest people in society are the ones who've consumed the most? While the rich are those who've saved sensibly? That doesn't seem right.
wowsa0 9 months ago
@wowsa0 Hmmm. Could this be why poor people in America are so damn fat?
fzqlcs 9 months ago
@wowsa0 I think its more explaining how there will always be poor people and they will always consume, not that individuals latch on like a parasite to a wealthy person and take everything from them. The poor do make up the majority and its likely that they do consume more things like food and buy more tvs and things like that. And wealthy people do tend to save quite alot, just saying. Good question, but i dont think thats what they were trying to imply :)
cmiller8492 8 months ago
@cmiller8492 So you're saying that a millionaire spends less in a year than a single mum on welfare?
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 Never. Its the millions of single mums that spend more than the lone millionaire. There will always be thousands and thansands of poor for the wealthy and to take wealthy peoples hard earned money away to give to everyone, not just single moms that work hard, thats what they are saying. Some millionaires are born, yes, but some make it on their own. Why punish thier success to give it to bums. And I dont mean the deserving poor i mean bums which is where most of their money goes.
cmiller8492 8 months ago
@cmiller8492 But how do you decide who is a 'bum' and who isn't? It's very difficult to do. It's very difficult to determine whether someone is trying hard enough to improve their situation or not. With a strong welfare state you are going to get people receiving welfare who maybe shouldn't do, I'll accept that, but the alternative, no welfare state, is even worse, because people who are poor through no fault of their own will not get the services they need for a healthy happy existence.
wowsa0 8 months ago
@wowsa0 Bum-sleeps all day, stays up all night, does not work, squanders money and shirks responsibilites. Deserving welfare recipient- Wakes up early and goes to work, handles all their responsibilities, takes care of and feeds their children, and if they dont have enough to get by doing all of this, then they get what they NEED, not a $3000 dollar check a month.
cmiller8492 8 months ago
@cmiller8492 So if you were in charge then you'd be able to determine who should get what and how much better than all the other bureaucrats would you? I think we have to accept that if we want to have welfare (which in my opinion we do) then people are going to get it who maybe shouldn't get it. That's a price worth paying.
wowsa0 8 months ago
you really don't get more bigotted than these guys are here
lamlyn 9 months ago
Wow. Let's not base our social/political views on what some dumb ass comedians say. Pie analogy=epic fail.
MetalMannequin 9 months ago
All thinking people are embarrassed by using this ridiculous adolescent skit to try & make a political point in favor of protecting personal wealth. Only a petulent child would join in reducing a discussion of such importance to elementary school level, especially since it twists their own "logic". It shows the selfish person concerned with property rights eating the entire pie. Is that actually the point? That the selfish who're concerned with losing personal wealth actually get it all?
tripfunkmonster 9 months ago
@tripfunkmonster
How dare we try to protect personal wealth! lol how dare we?! ;-)
All that personal wealth that people earn for themselves... it's so selfish for them to try to keep others from taking it. In fact it's wrong... they should just give all the fruits of their labor up for others who aren't fortunate enough to have the will to labor as well or as efficiently.
In fact... pass me your pie tripfunk, before I get the govt to take it from you.
sailcats77 9 months ago
@sailcats77: You can't scare me with the government - it's been weakened to the point of being destroyed already. Now Wall St. - that's scary. Get control of them & you've got something.
tripfunkmonster 9 months ago
@tripfunkmonster The government is weak? Which government are you talking about? It can't be the US one, I mean, it can somehow imprison 25% of ALL PRISONERS ON EARTH, and it extorts its population every year, with resistance being hopelessly crushed. Also, the government enforces laws that create barriers to entry for small business, in favor of big businesses that practically control the government. It sure would be nice if they couldn't do that. The government should be weak, but it isn't.
1000g2g3g4g800999 9 months ago
@1000g2g3g4g800999: I don't know if it's semantics or what...our gov't is supposed to be the people. That's democracy. Corporations have taken over . THAT'S my point. Wall St. tells us gov't is too strong so we weaken it. Then, they tell us it's still too strong so we weaken it more. Then, they say it's the enemy so we weaken it more. Each time, corps grab more power until we no longer have democracy. That's where we are now. Corps elect our representatives & we wonder why we're not represented.
tripfunkmonster 9 months ago
That's public services fault for allowing big business in that case. Dont blame the player blame the game. There shouldn't be public services like their shouldn't be welcoming jobs for illegals. Dont fix the player fix the game. The rules are all fucked up.
ridiculusstimulus 9 months ago
To quote the trust-busting Teddy Roosevelt: "We draw the line against misconduct, not against wealth". You're just being knee-jerk like every other black-and-white absolutist that thinks disagreeing means supporting the polar opposite.
.
If there is no power to buy, then THEY become the power, and people who exploit oppressed people and children can't be trusted
.
"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."
-Benito Mussolini
nurb101 9 months ago
Interesting that despite what was being acted out it was in fact the fat Libertarian that ended up eating all the pies.
davijeph 9 months ago 7
The socialist method the EU employs throughout Healthcare costs more per person, doesn't cover everyone and is ranked below the US.... oh wait I got that all backwards, it is cheaper, covers everyone and damn near all Europe and Asia are beating the US in healthcare...
Socialism without Freedom is Slavery and Brutality
But
Freedom without Socialism is Privilege and Injustice.
Socialism is not evil but, just like capitalism, it's not good at 100%, you always need a balance
A16AdamWalker 9 months ago 2
@A16AdamWalker If you think that the US has a free market in health care, then you are completely ignorant. Through over regulation and bad incentives, the US has managed to create a system that is actually worse than pure socialism. That is not to say that socialism is good by any stretch of the imagination.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree Well done for proving your ignorance as well, along with your inability to understand english. If you read what I said, I stated that there needed to be a balance between the two ideologies, quoting Mikhail Bakunin in the process.
Considering your rather smug, better than you, attitude I may well be wasting my time in arguing, but all I will say is whenever you point a finger, there are 3 pointing back.
A16AdamWalker 9 months ago
@A16AdamWalker You said that health care in the US is expensive and it doesn't cover enough people, which is true. You then went on to say that capitalism isn't good at 100%, implying that the problems with health care in the US are due to too much capitalism. If you think that, then you are obviously ignorant to the facts. US health care is not a free market; far from it.
obtree 9 months ago
@A16AdamWalker Your appeal to the middle ground is also intellectually poor. Consider: Bill wants to remove 5 fingers; George wants to remove 2 fingers; Brian wants to remove 0 fingers. Bill and Brian represent the extremes in this example. Do you wish to take the middle ground and side with George?
obtree 9 months ago
@A16AdamWalker
I guess too many healthy people is socialist. What's next? Making a good education possible for the poor?
michaelg114 9 months ago
God Americans are stupid. The biggest welfare recipients are on Wall Street and yet they've already got plenty of pie. But somehow they're a protected species.
mirabilo 9 months ago
he who controls the machinery of capitalism makes slaves of everyone else. how does one make their own pie when one doesn't own the ground on which to grow it's ingredients? he must settle for making pie for someone at a wage, then buying one of the pies at a price equal to the value of his wage.
cunninglikeness 9 months ago
the government owns nothing. it cant give to one unless it first takes from someone else.
taxes punish people who produce and rewards people who dont produce.
why do poor people get mad at rich people when the rich want to keep what they earned, its their money. if poor people want more they should earn it.
jims3666 9 months ago
i hate how some aspects of capitailism treats land and workers but for the most part im a capitalist
WVlandnwater 9 months ago
I usually agree with Penn and Teller, but this video is just bullshit.
MoldytoasterMedia 9 months ago
*continuation*
This is the problem in discussing anything that isn’t capitalism. Capitalists have twisted words and/or definitions around to such an extent that ordinary people with ordinary incomes immediately think: "Oh my god, their going to steal the shirt off my back."
In reality, such a system merely advocates a pooling the excess (of those that have such excess) for those that have nothing.
It is exaggeration bordering on slanderous fabrication that should not be tolerated.
MistrWillow 10 months ago
@MistrWillow
"oh my god their*
*they’re
Sorry
MistrWillow 10 months ago
This "explanation" is absolute hyperbole.
A more correct analogy would be if Penn took a bite (perhaps two if they weren’t that generous) of Teller’s piece of pie, which he then let Teller finish. In the case of the several multi-millionaires and billionaires in the US, it would be like taking a single bite out of the entire pie (or a single piece out of said entire pie in regard to millionaires).
Penn gets something and Teller certainly isn’t going to starve.
*continued in next post*
MistrWillow 10 months ago
They don't explain it right at all they are just making shit up
Kushx0J 10 months ago
@Kushx0J You didn't criticize them right at all. You're just making shit up.
Oh ho, see what I did there? Statements not immediately followed by the word "because" are worthless because opinions and facts are not the same thing.
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
What a fucking load of bullshit. I hate Penn & Teller.
SlaktadOchStolt 10 months ago
I'll become a libertarian tomorrow if I ever see a small group of them refusing to collect their Social Security checks or any type of government benefit that's offered to them. I'll also do so if someday one of their houses is burning down and they tell the fire department not to come, or if they get robbed they don't report the crime (just hiring a private detective is still okay, though, but no calling 911). Until that day I'll always have my doubts about their sincerity.
danning1 10 months ago
@danning1 You are either confusing libertarianism with anarchy or you are intentionally creating a strawman argument. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance instead of malice.
jfuex 10 months ago
@jfuex Refusing to collect Social Security checks or accepting any government benefits would not make them (or anyone else) anarchists at all. Remember that most libertarians--including Milton Friedman--have admitted that defense and law enforcement are two things that could never be privatized. But really, when you think about it, at heart most liberrtarians are hypocrites. They gladly accept a lot of gov. benefits that they rail against in their various forums. I stand by what I said.
danning1 10 months ago
@danning1 The flaw in your argument is trying to paint anyone who calls themself a libertarian a hypocrite by comparing their actions with the ideal at one extreme of the ideology. Very few people, if any are 100% anything. That is, I wouldn't call someone who considered themselves an environmentalist a hypocrite because they drove a car. Not everyone in a movement is at the extreme.
jfuex 10 months ago
@danning1 Also, many libertarians would gladly opt out of Social Security and similar entitlement programs if they could fully opt out. That is, if they didn't have to pay into the system either and could redirect those funds to private insurance or retirement accounts. As for fire and police service, no libertarian I know thinks those shouldn't be government services. Libertarian doesn't mean NO Government (that's anarchy and your strawman) it means LIMITED Government.
jfuex 10 months ago
Fuck no wonder Pen is huge. He gives a lot of pie to himself.
ThatGuy623 10 months ago
1) those in higher income brackets don't spend as much as those in lower income (in terms of a percentage of their income), thus you get more stimulative bang-for-your-buck when you give tax cuts to lower income brackets.
2) there is less marginal cost to those who experience a tax hike in higher income brackets vs. lower income brackets.
3) Wealth is not solely the product of hard work and merit. Inheritance tax is a case in point.
7mak1 11 months ago
@7mak1
1) yes, this is true, but where does the money that they don't spend go. It just doesn't sit around. Banks? somewhere. What does that bank do with the money? It lends it to people like you to get a car, a house, etc.
2) Wealth is maliable. It has no dedicated place or form. If you hike taxes on income to high, you'll see it leave.
3) Where does inherited money come from? You're parents', grandparents', etc. hard work and merit. So it really does come from those things.
nova1887 11 months ago
No. 100 people all have a pie, and as some begin taking pie for themselves as they take away tables and chair legs from the others, making them unable to hold onto their pies very well. Soon 10 people have over 70 pies because they took people's ability to maintain their share by weakening their tables and giving parts to people in different rooms. When the people without pie want to get some peices back, they're told it's pie redistribution and bad, so they can't have the pie back like before.
nurb101 11 months ago 7
@nurb101 And the only that what you described happens is when you allow, through legal laws, the ability to manipulate it all. Tax holes, and tax loops. Some of the biggest earners in america work for the poor to help them out. How does that happen? Owner of Good will donations making over 750k per year, head of plan parenting makes over 1 million per year. And these are who are leading us to help the poor. Redistribution of wealth only makes the wealthy more wealthy.
bluefootedpig 11 months ago
@nurb101 The ten people who have pies are bakers. You can buy a pie, or you can start baking your own pies.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
You make it sound so easy. 20 people have 93 pies and they pit the remaining 80 people against each other to fight over 7 pies.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 those twenty people didn't get their pies by taking them from the rest. They got them by creating them. Two hundred years ago there was less than one pie to split among those 100 people.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
Lets dump the analogies. 60 years ago the majority of Americans controled the majority of the wealth, since the late 70's, we've lost millions of jobs and 93% of the wealth got "redistributed" upwards to 20% of Americans as the middle-class shrinks, and they have you convinced you and I are greedy for expecting people who have 93% of the money to pitch in for the country.
.
They want wealth to "trickle down" and sacrifice to "trickle up". I'm not giving up anything for their tax breaks
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 Wrong. Wealth was not "redistributed" upwards. The bottom 80% is better off than it has ever been.
Also, do you think that the 93% all goes to private jets and mansions? No, it's tied up in infrastructure. You make it sound like the money would be better spent somewhere else, but its not money at all; its factories, businesses, machinery, mines, stores.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
Ha! The middle class lost majority control of the nation's wealth and now has 25 people competing for every available job that cannot support a home and family on a single income anymore and you say it's better off?. The corporate and financial sectors have recorded historically high profits in a poor economy, and GE gets an 8 BILLION $ tax rebate despite making 14 billion in profit, yet we're told it's us that need to sacrifice local services while tax money goes to their rebates.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 I'm not arguing for corporate bailouts and tax loopholes. I think the rich should pay an equal share of their income as the poor. Warren Buffet pays less in taxes than his secretary; obviously I don't agree with that. Neither do I agree with a "progressive" tax system, that gives the wealthy an incentive to hide their money overseas.
And people are better off. 20 years ago almost nobody had access to a computer. Food costs as a percentage of income have never been lower.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
You're confusing advancement in technology to upward mobility. Food has gotten cheaper because the quality went down and we're importing foods from china and brazil without tariffs which undercut American farmers, making them rely on gov't subsidies. Shopping for healthy, quality food is still higher priced. the US used to be the most upwardly mobile, now we're second least since the 80's, not better off.
Buffet says the richest like him need to pay more because they're doing so well.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 The rich would pay more. 10% of a higher income is more than 10% of a lower income.
Advancements in technology improve our standard of living. Why would I exclude them? Ask your parents or grandparents about what they ate as children. Food is of better quality, lower price, and more variety than ever before, thanks mostly to advancements in technology.
What you say about upward mobility is completely wrong. Thomas Sowell has written some brilliant works that I recommend you read.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
Also, you mentioned you're against loopholes and bailouts and told to be against them, but the same people call enforcement of any sort of regulation or policy to stop businesses from getting to "too big to fail" communism and that you're telling business what to do. Well intentioned cons like yourself are being manipulated to vote against your own best interests by these people saying there's a problem for your vote, but then stopping the solution.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 The solution is to allow them to fail.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
And that's the problem, if the anti-trust acts already on the books were enforced, they wouldn't get "too big to fail" and hold the country hostage in the first place and their lobbyists couldn't pay the politicians to give them bailouts.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 Nothing is "too big to fail". That is propaganda thrown around by those lobbyists. Allowing them to fail is much less damaging than carrying them on the backs of the taxpayer and giving them no disincentive for failure. Equally damaging are the arbitrary, immoral, and stupid antitrust laws. They were thought up by the same kind of people coined the term "too big to fail", and implemented to prop up companies that were too inept to compete.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
If that were true, then president Bush wouldn't have given Walstreet a bailout after they threatened economic ruin if we didn't "socialize" their losses
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 Right, because Bush was a champion of the free market and Libertarians everywhere. Oh, wait...
Listen, if you're going to try and debate someone, maybe do a little research on the topic you are debating before you do. And by research, I don't mean memorizing talking points from retards like Naomi Klein and Noam Chomsky.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
corporations aren't interested in capitalism or libertarianism, they're paying politicians to give them what they want: More for themselves by any means neccisary. If they cared about capitalism they wouldn't make the US depend almost entirely on the oppressive nature of communism for cheap labor that don't have rights.
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 If there are no politicians or bureaucrats to bribe, then corporations are forced to provide us with the things we need and want in order to make their profits.
Sweatshops in China and other developing countries. Nobody in the US would ever work for 12 hours with little or no breaks in harsh working conditions and expect to only make a few pennies. However, those jobs are the most sought after, highest paying, and best working conditions available in those countries.
obtree 9 months ago
@nurb101 Child labor is also acceptable. The children there are going to be working, whether it's in a sweatshop, or as a prostitute or whatever. I would much rather they work in a relatively safe, clean sweatshop.
The working conditions in the third world are the same as ours were before we had developed. As they develop and work themselves out of poverty their living standards will improve too. The "evil" corporations that invest in that country are providing the leg up that they need.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
Are you kidding me? Are you defending the exploitation of children by a society that knows such a thing is immoral and funding the communist government oppressing them? Nothing will change, the corporations that opperate there (Yahoo) actually helped China track down and imprison a democracy advocate because they don't want conditions to improve; people with rights are bad for profit.
.
If you're OK with that, you can't complain about communism or job outourcing without being a hypocrit
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 I'm not complaining about job outsourcing. Since allowing international companies to open businesses is not a trait of communism, I have no need to complain about that either.
Things already have changed. The conditions there have vastly improved. China is now a second world country. The government has been forced to loosen its grip somewhat, and I expect that to continue.
You can't complain about communism and still advocate for wealth redistribution without being a hypocrite.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
"wealth redistribution" is vague buzzword includes social security for old folks and veteran benefits. Marxist communism is focused on no private funds or property where all things are held collectively. No candidate outside of the communist party advocates for that, so calling it "communism" is generalizing talk-radio hyperbole.
.
Am I right in assuming you're christian and a believer in Ayn Rand?
nurb101 9 months ago
@nurb101 What is hypocritical about you is you share the communist's irrational hatred and contempt for the wealthy. You don't understand that wealth is not a pie to be divided and distributed. It is created.
You are afraid of corporations because they can bribe the government and gain control over you, but if the government had no control over you then there would be no power for the corporations to buy.
obtree 9 months ago
@nurb101
No. Actually if your 100 people have pie, some eat it all up, others trade their pie for drugs, and others go out and figure out how to make more pies. Some get so good at making pies, they make it available to the ones who ate all their's at lower cost than they otherwise could've gotten it for. But those with less see those with more and get jealous, and figure they deserve some of that pie the producers produced, and get govt to take it from the producers.
Pie stealers.
sailcats77 9 months ago
I support the right to arm bears. philipnute com
zsezse215 11 months ago
47 people don't like pie. :(
Sentter 11 months ago
In Communism, it's the person that made the pie that gets the whole thing...
In Capitalism, it goes to whoever came up with the idea of making a pie...
In Socialism, we decide beforehand how the pie is to be divided so nobody is alienated..
Penn's just a fat fuck...
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
In socialism the person that made the pie gets shot for "counter-revolutinary activities" and the state keeps the whole pie.
In capitalism the person who made the pie voluntarily trades half of it for a glass of milk.
TheLibertarianzy 11 months ago
@TheLibertarianzy
"In socialism the person that made the pie gets shot for "counter-revolutinary activities" and the state keeps the whole pie."
Sounds more like Stalinism... or unrestrained Libertarianism.
Both tend towards Oligarchy.
Both attempt to undermine Democracy under the guise of "rightful ownership"
Neither are sustainable.
And neither are worth defending.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
Funny, how you think libertarianism can lead to an oligarchy...quite the opposite.
MidNiteR32 11 months ago
@MidNiteR32
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between serfdom or starvation.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@MidNiteR32
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
Communism sucks too, though.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@MidNiteR32
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
Communism sucks too, though.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@MidNiteR32
I suppose it could be funny. It's also a fact that everything CATO Institute fights for does engender inequality with no end in sight and will do so till it eventually leads to an oligarchy once the top tax bracket has literally everything and everyone else is left to decide between unpayable debt and serfdom or starvation.
Communism sucks too, though.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
Libertarianism by definition promotes de NON AGRESSION PRINCIPLE and no libertarian would EVER allow a state to violate the rights of others.
Yoyoninono 11 months ago
@Yoyoninono
"NON AGRESSION PRINCIPLE and no libertarian would EVER allow a state to violate the rights of others."
Oh, us oligarchs wouldn't initiate force.. We'd simply collude(freedom of association) to deprive you of what's necessary to live.. Then, in order to survive and stay consistent as Libertarians, you'd either agree to forfeit all your freedom to one of us or refuse and starve to death.
No force was necessary. Just a better understanding of Libertarianism on our part.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
"Most actions do not aim at anybodys defeat or loss. They aim at an improvement in conditions" -Ludwig von Mises
Why would anybody would collude to deprive you of whats necessary to live in the first place?
Its OK to fear Libertarianism at first but you need to stop thinking of society as if we were at war with each other.
Libertarianzy 11 months ago
@Libertarianzy
"Why would anybody would collude to deprive you of whats necessary to live in the first place?"
Necessity... I don't fear Libertarianism at all. I'm just prepared for it.
"you need to stop thinking of society as if we were at war with each other."
Sounds like you wouldn't last a week in a Libertarian society.. Maybe you should read up on it some more.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
"Necessity."
People dont need to conspire against one another in a free society when you can simply trade for things voluntarily and freely.
"I'm just prepared for it."
?
"Sounds like you wouldn't last a week in a Libertarian society."
There's that fear again.
Please read "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard.
Libertarianzy 11 months ago
@Libertarianzy
"Please read "The Ethics of Liberty" by Murray Rothbard."
I suggest you keep reading it..
The more diluted misconceptions you have about human behavior in a Libertarian state, the higher the odds that you'll end up my bitch..
Spread the word cuz I want less competition and more bitches when the day comes..
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
What a persuasive argument against libertarianism...... NOT
Thelibertyreigns 11 months ago
@Thelibertyreigns
"What a persuasive argument against libertarianism...... NOT"
I haven't heard a 'not joke' since I was 10.
That's hella retro.
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
A retro joke for a retro post
Thelibertyreigns 11 months ago
@JakDerrida Amen bro!
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@JakDerrida You have this all wrong.
In Communism the baker doesn't know how much flour is worth or how much he needs, so he uses his political connections to acquire and hoard as much as he can, leaving other bakers with nothing. He then bakes a pie and it is divided out equally to everyone. However, because there aren't enough pies being baked, everybody's share of the pie is a mere crumb, except for the political class who get first crack.
obtree 9 months ago
@JakDerrida In capitalism the baker first pays for all of the ingredients, the electricity to bake the pie, and any employees who help out (with previous pies I guess). Then he bakes the pie. He then uses the large majority of that pie to pay for the next batch of pies, and he gets to eat the remainder.
obtree 9 months ago
@JakDerrida In socialism, the capitalist baker bakes a pie, then the IRS takes about half of it and the government gives it to people to entice them to reelect them. Yes, some of those people are incapable of baking their own pies, but the baker already gives a large portion of his pies to the needy. This is in addition to all of the good the baker is doing to all of his employees and clients just by running his bakery.
obtree 9 months ago
@obtree
In socialism (if you consider taxes socialism), the baker pays taxes in higher proportion than those that make less. And in exchange his customers have roads to drive there. His rights to the bakery are enforced by government which avoids solicitation and threats from competiters much like the outdoor markets of third world countries.. His customers can also be content that the food won't kill them as a minimum standard enforced by government, which benefits the baker more than he pays
JakDerrida 9 months ago
@JakDerrida In many cases, big business takes advantage of public services in an attempt to externalize their costs. I recently read a brilliant piece by Roderick T. Long at the Mises institute, where he goes into great detail about that, but while I agree with you on the problem, I differ on the solution. We both want everybody to pay their fair share, but my argument is that the free market is the best way to accomplish that.
obtree 9 months ago
@DonClerici
That's not socialism they're illustrating. It's social democracy within a capitalist system. Socialism would mean that they split the pie in half.
00maharum00ma 11 months ago
@00maharum00ma
Socialism would mean that there is no pie in the first place and everyone starves to death.
TheLibertarianzy 11 months ago
This is ridiculous. When will Americans learn that socialism is not EVIL and has nothing to do with Communism?
Fapsamup 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Fapsamup {When will Americans learn that socialism is not EVIL and has nothing to do with Communism?}
I don't know, probably about the same time "Americans" realize there is plenty of socialism in Europe if thats what they are dying to have.
mindprism 11 months ago
@Fapsamup
When will europeans learn that communist was just a name soviet socialists used to name their party and that socialism inherently does not work?
TheLibertarianzy 11 months ago
@TheLibertarianzy Well, when I see how big the difference is between rich people an poor people in the USA I have serious questions about the wealth distribution. America is promoting selfishness. Money before the people.
Fapsamup 11 months ago
@Fapsamup
Selfishness would be stealing other peoples money to fund your programs, which no one agrees to paying for in the first place.
MidNiteR32 11 months ago
@Fapsamup
No, America promotes self-ownership and self-government, what you make is yours and your property is respected by everyone even the allmighty government.
You think people is before money, I agree I, Im people therefore you must give me all your money.
Yoyoninono 11 months ago
@Fapsamup The difference between the rich and poor is a measure of a society's opportunity.
jfuex 10 months ago
Pie please!
RickBeall 11 months ago
I always wondered how our country could be spiraling out of control so badly, then I read these comments. So many people in this country are just so oblivious to the truth, you just want more for your selves. What ever happened to actually working for it?
drumminshooter 11 months ago
why is it so hard for all you people to understand something so simple....is it really so hard to get 2 complete thoughts in your pointy little heads? corporate welfare AND AND AND social welfare are BOTH disgusting...to only see one side or the other indicates about a kindergarten level of brain activity
naliman100 11 months ago
Oh I get it! Pie=Money!
So by taxing people in the top 2% income class (over $250,000/year)* more than the people in the bottom 10% (less than $10,500/year)*, that means that the people in the Bottom 10% are spending all of the money the upper 2% are making! Wow, you'd think they'd have more to show for it. Wait... unless this terrible analogy is a misrepresentation of the facts to trick undereducated people into thinking that the poorest individuals in this country are well off.
*US Census
ebergenn 11 months ago
43 people think this video is about pie.
wambamedia 1 year ago
Bottom line - when our country was at its best the tax rate for the super rich was above 70% During the Clinton administration we balanced our budget and grew jobs. Ever sense we began to lower taxes and spend more we have consistently lost jobs and lowered the income of the middle class. The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. sure am glad I was born rich...
harr7959 1 year ago
@harr7959 bottom line is that allowing people to keep more of the money they earn is not only moral but it also stimulates the economy. The reason is simple. If people have more money, they spend it, invest it, put it in the bank, etc. which leads to growth.
Clinton benefited by 1) having the tech bubble which grew under his administration and 2) having a Repub Congress which put the brakes on a lot of spending.
FiendsInRedSatin1 11 months ago
This is the worst demonstration of Socialism. Socialism simply means common owner ship, the people who produce get equal shares of what they produced. Socialism does not mean if your lazy you will get as much money as the rest, these gentlemen above got their facts horribly wrong and their supporting the propaganda that is created by Fox News.
rutgerh9 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@rutgerh9 {Socialism simply means common owner ship, the people who produce get equal shares of what they produced. }
So the nurse gets paid the same as the doctor and the bedpan washer because they all produced a healthy patient.
That makes sense.
mindprism 11 months ago
no wonder the fat one is so fat.
phillyvinilli 1 year ago
Why the fuck didn't he bring this up when Bush or Reagan borrowed money to give to their friends??
Seriously, why the fuck do people only bring up this analogy when the poor cry for help but when CEOs want bailouts for giant fucking bonuses(WITHOUT CONDITIONS), Penn hides with his fucking tail between his legs??
Why the fuck does Penn trash the Catholic Church but says he's too fucking scared to trash on Muslims??
FUCKING COWARD!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
JakDerrida 1 year ago 3
@JakDerrida He should go after the Zionist Lobby in the USA, or better yet around the world.
BouncePounce 1 year ago
@JakDerrida No I'm pretty sure there was plenty of opposition to it. perhaps you just chose to not notice it because it didn't suit your own agenda. Maybe you were too busy watching Hannah Montana
phillyvinilli 1 year ago
@JakDerrida, you obviously haven't seen the full episode of Penn and Teller on taxes. There not specifically talking about obama, but the progressive tax. They also attack the bailout.
VasOling 11 months ago
@JakDerrida
You are a moron. Penn did object to the bailouts. Most libertarians did. Get a job you clown.
freesavant 11 months ago
@freesavant
"Penn did object to the bailouts. Most libertarians did."
Actually, he definitely did not.. Go ahead and find a quote or video where he was objecting to the bailouts.
"Get a job you clown."
I actually do have a job and have grossed 6 figures this year and last. And despite paying a higher tax rate than maybe a single mother working at a fast food restaurant just to get by, I've somehow saved alot of money and do not feel the need to portray myself as being victimized by them
JakDerrida 11 months ago 3
@JakDerrida what are you talking about, he has ripped on everyone your talking about. He was an avid critic of bush and reagan. Calm down
wannabestudd 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@wannabestudd
"what are you talking about, he has ripped on everyone your talking about. He was an avid critic of bush and reagan."
Umm.. No he wasn't.. He may have criticised the "War on drugs" in 1 episode but EVERYTHING else he was completely complicit with.
Go ahead.. Find a quote or video of him criticizing them while (or even before) they did something..
HE IS A FUCKING COWARD!
JakDerrida 11 months ago
@JakDerrida It's because more often than not the poor will be black or brown people, while the rich are, again more often than not, white. And while I realize that white people are not as racist as they were 60 years ago, they believe that blacks and browns must WORK for what they want - only White people are allowed to benefit freely from America. This is, after all, their country.
ejbelton 11 months ago
@ejbelton Welfare is the big problem in that it creates a permanent underclass since if you pay people to stay poor, they tend to stay poor. Welfare was mostly centered around black communities. Nice way to keep minorities poor and dependant so they won't rock the boat.
So it's not just any old whitey who's the problem, it's the ones in power.
Poverty was going down before welfare. After? That came to a dead stop.
lordthawkeye 10 months ago
@JakDerrida
if you're talking about GM accepting the fact that the gtovernment owned 60% of them, you must realize the businessman's point of view.
there is no way, with the labor unions and the cost of labor, that if GM failed, any start up could ever compete with foreign car makers. the car industry would be done in america, except for ford, and chrysler and a few other unknowns. the jobs lost would stay lost. forever. the CEOs knew this.
PianoForteAndrew 10 months ago
@PianoForteAndrew
I'm not addressing GM bailouts..
I was addressing giving bailouts to the banks which went directly to enormous bonuses..
I found both bailouts to be necessary.. But what was unnecessary was alleged free marketeers crying out that the bailouts should be given without conditions to make sure they don't give themselves giant bonuses for destroying the economy, which they did.
Meanwhile, Penn hid with his tail between his legs.
JakDerrida 10 months ago
@JakDerrida
well you're right on that, but penn and teller focused on the 'poor' receiving money, because the money given to the CEOs for bailouts are chump change compared to welfare, SS, and medicare costs, as well as all wasteful spending of our tax dollars.
i dont know that it was cowardice, and i bet they do an episode of bullshit on bailouts (have they already done one?) this season.
and hey, even i would be scared to trash muslims if i was a public figure.
PianoForteAndrew 10 months ago
LOL Penn Jillette FTW
jrsub3 1 year ago
You Americans know nothing of socialism. I find it hard to understand this instinctive fear of the collective financing of social welfare. It seems that you believe that taxation is an intrusion on what you percieve as liberty. I live in sweden, and thanks to the fact that I never have to worry about not affording health-care or a decent education I have real oppertunities to pursue the life I want. It seems to me that Americans have all the the options in the world but only 1 % can afford it
jojakorn 1 year ago
@jojakorn You see if we look at Greece, France, and England we see that they are having huge finacial problems to point where there is riating in the streets, in the case of France the people are attacking officers and setting cars and buildings on fire b/c the govt wants to increase the retirment age from 65 to 67 even though they will still get full benefits. In the US you keep the money that you have worked hard for and do with your own money as you please instead of relying on govt.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Now you wanna pretend that taxes are taken after paychecks are issued, as if paying taxes were a choice one makes.
I only "get to keep" a portion of my earnings.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@maskedphrogg Out market may not be as free as it once was, in that you are correct. No thanks to govt. See socialism allows the govt to make many choices for you, and it is not working out to well in Europe as I have stated. Taking more from someone just b/c they have more is not right, would you not like to have more of your own hard earned money to spend as you see fit and not a govt you may or may not agree with?
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
That was my point.
In your earlier post you gave the impression that tax policy in the US was equitable to those that pay it and expenditures made from tax revenue are all appropriate. I disagree. In much the same manner that Europe inappropriately taxes it's citizens for expenses the citizenry would be better purchasing out-of-pocket, US is taxing it's citizenry into outright bankruptcy. Payroll with-holding and currency inflation both aid in masking this inappropriate taxation.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Socialism has been working great in Europe. The average GDP per capital of the european countries are so much higher then America. Secondly if you look at Switzerland, Scandinavia and Holland which are the most socialist countries you will see that the health of their citizens is the highest in the world, that the gap between rich and poor is incredibly low. That nearly the whole population can read and write and you will see that their economies are really stable.
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 Also you are lying to yourself if you think Europe is financially ok, b/c last time I checked there are riots in Greece, Fance has been shut down, Ireland takes a bailout (paid for by Germany) and Spain has an unemployment rate of 18%. If you call that growth then I think you might want to recheck what growth really means.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Well obviously you dont know anything about the bail out. The bailout is a loan but they only way to get that loan is for the European governments to stand be the back up in case Greece or Ireland fails to pay back the entire loan. Riots happen in every single country.... and it doesnt necessarily mean that the government is bad. Secondly America has a waaaay bigger unemployment rate then Spain. Thirdly I never said anything about growth i said stable...
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 US unemployment 9.6%, Spain 20.7% (spain has waaaay bigger unemployment). The US population was very small in comparison to China, when the US started out it sailed passed China. Japan has the biggest debt in the world. China pays its workers about $3 a day, are using more unevironmentally friendly fuel like coal, and kill children if a couple has more than one child.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Wrong answer, Spain counts the people who are unemployed however America only counts the people who are unemployed for less then 3 years or something (Dont know the exact number of years).
China
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 US real unemployment 16%, Spain 20.7% sorry Spain still wins. See when a country has been found supplying weapons, money, and other supplies to terrorist groups that attack another country, yeah that is still a reason to attack the supply country, b/c odds are the terrorists might have a base there.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 See when a country requires a bailout, it means the country was doing a terrible job at controling its taxpayers money, and yes the US also is doing a terrible job at controlling its taxpayers money. Also what happens when a country if it can't pay back its loan, if it has inflated its money to point where it is useless.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
If Ireland or Greece cant pay back the money the european countries which stand granted for it will pay it back. I doubt it that the Euro will ever decline (extremely) in worth because of inflation.
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 So you mean if a country mismanages its money to the point of bankruptcy others country, mostly Germany, have to foot the bill. Thats a little unfair to the citizens of the other countries who have to give their tax dollars to countries who screwed up big time. And seeing the way things are going now, after Greece and Ireland, and soon Spain, I don't think there is going to be enough money support another bailout.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
No, Greece and Irland have agreed to cut heavy in the spendings and get their country health again. Germany hasnt paid anything to Ireland or Greece.....
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 Very wrong friend, Germany paid a lot for the bailouts given to both Greece and Irland. Also last time I checked Greece is trying to cut its spending and the people are setting cars and police on fire, and rioting. Not doing to well over there. By the by Beck predicted the Greek problems and the riots.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@jojakorn Bill gates started his company from the ground up, without govt aid or welfare programs. See in the US we have this thing where we lilke to keep what we earn and spend our money as we see fit. What is more in the US you have greater chance at succeding b/c of the US's free market, as did Bill gates and many others. In the US we like options and choices, giving us only govt options is something we don't want, b/c socialism is not working out in Europe.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Yeah, let's completely ignore Gates' agreements with IBM and then go on to pretend the markets in the US are free markets.
If the majority of computing device users in the US preferred choice and options then linux, not M$ Windows®© or Apple© OSX, would be the predominant operating system.
Apparently US denizens only prefer the appearance of supporting choice. Actually making choices is like work so they prefer for someone else to make the choice for them.
maskedphrogg 1 year ago
@ace098765431
have you ever been in Europe? or do you get your facts from Fox news???
Socialism is making sure that YOU get at least a minimum pay but of you go capitalist style
the companies who are FORCED BY LAW TO MAKE PROFIT decide what they pay you and since so many people dont have a job the pay will be extremely low. So thank socialism that you can afford a computer or that your parent could afford a computer for you and something to eat everyday.
rutgerh9 1 year ago
@rutgerh9 Wrong, companies are NOT FORCED BY LAW TO MAKE PROFIT, see if that were true then no company would go out of business. Now lets see over last 100 years, which country became the most powerful and most rich in the world, thats right the US with its evil capitalist system, then over the past few decades our system has been pushed to a mores socalistic system, not completley mind you, and now we are not doing to well.
ace098765431 1 year ago
@ace098765431
Yes, companies or obliged to forced to make profit and companies go out of business all the time and have to pay their share holders money. The most powerful country is USA because of the amount of people. Their not the richest, they have the biggest dept in the world, secondly China is richer and is becoming more powerful. Your not doing well because Capitalist (Bush) went to war for no reason except to make the weapon companies rich.
rutgerh9 1 year ago