Would the real socialists please stand up

by editor on July 1, 2011

Seems to us that Victor Davis Hanson is logical and clear-thinking with a firm grasp of reality. In other words, a raaaaacist.

His latest column notes the discrepancy between the words and deeds of John Kerry, Tim Geithner, Charles Rangel, Bono, et al, who strive mightily to avoid paying the higher taxes they themselves advocate.

bono-socialist

The $1000 sunglasses are a sure clue that Bono is a socialist

Here’s his assessment via Pajamas Media:

This discussion is, of course, a belabored example of why and how socialists do not like socialism. Indeed, statism is not a desired outcome, but rather more a strategy for obtaining power or winning acclaim as one of the caring, by offering the narcotic of promising millions something free at the expense of others who must be seen as culpable and obligated to fund it — entitlements fueled by someone else’s money that enfeebled the state, but in the process extended power, influence, and money to a technocratic class of overseers who are exempt from the very system that they have advocated.

Their real-world analogs are called “termites”. Natural ones serve a purpose, clearing dead wood from forests to make resources available for new growth. The political version wrecks things to serve themselves….

So what is socialism? It is a sort of modern version of Louis XV’s “Après moi, le déluge” – an unsustainable Ponzi scheme in which elite overseers, for the duration of their own lives, enjoy power, influence, and gratuities by implementing a system that destroys the sort of wealth for others that they depend upon for themselves.

We’re always being told “it’s for the children.” Nice to know who the children are.

– Written by Bonfire of the Absurdities

Source: Pajamas Media

Leave a Reply

84 Comments on "Would the real socialists please stand up"

Notify of
PsychoDad
Guest

PS– stuff it up your arse, Livvy.

KimmyQueen
Guest

She can’t her head is in there…

PsychoDad
Guest

Yes, Livvy, and after The People liberated Loius’ head from his shoulders and instituted the great and noble advent of clear-headed, rationalist thinking ….came The Terror.

The Terror which killed more people in 3 years than the Spanish Inquisition killed in 300. And foreshadowed the great Stalinist show trials and mass executions, which murdered about 10 million people (and another 20 million Ukrainians by engineered starvation), and the bloodbath of the Cultural Revolution, which murdered abut 50 million.

Aint it funny how all these Great Leaps Forward in the name of “The People” always have to kill so MANY of them??!?

Sidekick
Member

Of late, there has been a rightward trend throughout Europe, most likely, I think, because of the sagging economy. But most Europeans don’t seem to be motivated to give up their strong social safety nets, even if it’s necessarily to do some trimming of benefits.
———————————————————————————————-
By your own post, you acknowledge Socialism is unsustainable. People, indeed, do not like to give up “free” stuff. In fact they often take to the streets as we have seen in London and Athens to protest such measures.

The sagging economy you cited simply exposed the above mentioned unsustainabilty of the entitlement programs. We are close to that point here especially since all the stimulus money that flowed to state treasuries to keep them afloat has dried up.

I think Western Europe’s current budget crises would have happened years ago if they had been fully responsible for their own defense during the Cold War. Of course, we picked up that tab, which allowed for them to spend on lavish social programs.

Olivia
Member

By your own post, you acknowledge Socialism is unsustainable. People, indeed, do not like to give up “free” stuff. In fact they often take to the streets as we have seen in London and Athens to protest such measures.
***********************
It’s not just about not wanting to give up “free” stuff, Kick. Europeans are well aware of the shortcomings of the U.S. health care system. They have access to the horror stories, like the one about the uninsured woman who died of a perforated intestine after waiting for hours in that LA emergency waiting room. They’re capable of comparing what a dose of antiemetic costs in a European clinic, versus what it costs in an American ER. They also know, as so many right wingers try to avoid knowing, that we Americans are paying much, much more per capita for our patchwork for-profit health care system, than ANY Europeans pay for fully socialized medicine.

This would be the cue for defenders of our broken system to argue, “BUT WE HAVE THE BEST! PEOPLE FROM EUROPE COME HERE FOR TREATMENT! HOW MANY AMERICANS GO TO EUROPE FOR TREATMENT????” Well, that’s not the issue here. No one’s arguing that the best the U.S. has to offer is unmatched anywhere else in the world. The problem isn’t our system’s capabilities, but the fact that too many Americans can’t afford to access it without bankrupting themselves. And, in the case of self-pay or Medicaid patients, too many can’t find a doctor who will treat them.

Europeans have heard about these problems. And they don’t want that kind of scenario in their own countries.

Sidekick
Member

You truly are the master of the non sequitur.

Olivia
Member

You truly are the master of the non sequitur.

***********************
No, you’re the one who started sneering about Europeans not wanting to give up “free stuff.” I merely gave you a very obvious example of why their wish to stick with strong social programs was motivated by fiscal sense, as well as materialism.

Sidekick
Member

Right I said free stuff. You went on some liberal talking point screed about health care. Health Care is only one element of the free stuff. The Brits and Greeks are burning down neighborhoods over free college tuition and retiring with full bennies at 52. Keep up, Prog!

Olivia
Guest

Right I said free stuff. You went on some liberal talking point screed about health care. Health Care is only one element of the free stuff. The Brits and Greeks are burning down neighborhoods over free college tuition and retiring with full bennies at 52. Keep up, Prog!
************************
If you want to discuss those problems, you should have said so, instead of expecting me to read your mind.

Tell me what YOU think would be the ideal way, here in the U.S., of addressing these issues. Then we’ll talk about it. 😉

Progressive Hemrrhoid
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid

I see Olivia is on here all day, I hope this isn’t what passes for employment for her. In that case Soros is going to be pissed.

Alien
Member

Nurses work crazy hours. 4 days on, 4 days off, variate. Fire up the grey matter, rhoid

nellie718
Member

four days on, four days off, etc. but on her days off, why isnt olivia out there doing something helpful for all the poor slobs she so vehemently advocates for? if shes a nurse, she should be out donating her skills to druggies; she can collect donations for all the lazy welfare recips, she could work in a soup kitchen dispensing meals to the homeless, or she could visit her local prison and counsel all the perps. what the hell is she doing on a conservative website, dispensing typical lib claptrap when there are so many poor, defenseless, unwashed masses out there who need her help?

Olivia
Member

four days on, four days off, etc. but on her days off, why isnt olivia out there doing something helpful for all the poor slobs she so vehemently advocates for?
**********************
Same reason YOU’RE not, Niki. Whoops, I forgot—-most right wingers claim to be paragons of social action and generosity, even while they’re contemptuously bad-mouthing the poor and blaming them for their own misfortunes. 😉

Sidekick
Member

Wealth redistribution…yes, yes much better that the government take it all and spread it around. It has proven itself capable of managing money so well up ’til now. Rank and file Liberals are economically illiterate or else they would not say the things they do with regard to wealth and its origins. Class warfare rhetoric resonates with them because they themselves have failed in the marketplace so they follow their uber wealthy Democratic leaders who shovel the class bulls**t. Look at the net worth of Kerry, Pelosi, Boxer, Feinstein, and Rockefeller. Not one of these people earned it on their own. They either married money or they were born into it . I don’t begrudge them for that but I do take them seriously when they babble on about economic inequality and the implications of that philosophy.

Olivia
Member

Class warfare rhetoric resonates with them because they themselves have failed in the marketplace so they follow their uber wealthy Democratic leaders who shovel the class bulls**t.
*********************
Nah, that whole “class warfare” BS originated with right wing TV and talk radio heroes.
In fact, they’re confusing the concept of social class with that of income bracket. Two very different things….but their fans bought right into it anyway.

PsychoDad
Guest

What a crock of shit you peddle. You’re really a nurse? I know one way to improve health care. Go back to flipping burgers.

Olivia
Guest

What a crock of shit you peddle. You’re really a nurse? I know one way to improve health care. Go back to flipping burgers.

***********************
Translation: “I can’t dispute a single thing you’re saying, so I’m just going to fling childish insults.”

Why even bother, Psycho?

Olivia
Member

Wealth redistribution…yes, yes much better that the government take it all and spread it around. It has proven itself capable of managing money so well up ’til now.
***********************
Actually, the economy was doing very well until George W. Bush got his mitts on it.
And, as I’ve pointed out numerous times, there are quite a few social democracies in existence today, that are doing well and have a comparatively low percentage of citizens being born into poverty.

Elrond Hubbard
Member

What is a “social democracy”? And are Greece, Spain and Portugal your idea of social democracies that are doing well?

Olivia
Member

What is a “social democracy”? And are Greece, Spain and Portugal your idea of social democracies that are doing well?
***********************
A social democracy is a democratic system with a strong element of socialism as well as capitalism.

France, Germany and Sweden are examples of social democracies in Europe.

Of late, there has been a rightward trend throughout Europe, most likely, I think, because of the sagging economy. But most Europeans don’t seem to be motivated to give up their strong social safety nets, even if it’s necessarily to do some trimming of benefits.

PsychoDad
Guest

“Of late, there has been a rightward trend throughout Europe, most likely, I think, because of the sagging economy”
——
HAHAHAHA!!! WTF?!?!? You think maybe … MAYBE …. that aint no coincidence?

HAHAHA!

Face the truth, sugarbush, socialism is a pyramid scheme, and the last level of suckers just tapped out. Eurosocialism has failed. No. That implies it was a success at some point. Eurosocialism IS a failure. Began in FAIL, and now is ending in FAIL.

It is like unto the terminal optimist who fell off the top of the Empire State Building, and as he passed each floor he hollered in the windows, “Doing fine so far!”

How’s all that Hopey Changey crap working out for ya?
“Doing fine so far!”

Olivia
Guest

Of late, there has been a rightward trend throughout Europe, most likely, I think, because of the sagging economy”
——
HAHAHAHA!!! WTF?!?!? You think maybe … MAYBE …. that aint no coincidence?

HAHAHA!

Face the truth, sugarbush, socialism is a pyramid scheme, and the last level of suckers just tapped out. Eurosocialism has failed. No. That implies it was a success at some point. Eurosocialism IS a failure. Began in FAIL, and now is ending in FAIL.

It is like unto the terminal optimist who fell off the top of the Empire State Building, and as he passed each floor he hollered in the windows, “Doing fine so far!”
**********************************
I guess it escaped your notice that Europe doesn’t want a system like ours, or like the every-man-for-himself system so prized by far righters. But, of course, FAUX News avoids pointing that out to their devotees.
***************************

How’s all that Hopey Changey crap working out for ya?
“Doing fine so far!”

**********************
Working out okay so far, given the mess Obama inherited.

How are those Dopey-Changey plans working out for you and the GOP?

danybhoy
Member

…and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…

Olivia
Member

…and to the REPUBLIC for which it stands…

********************
I’m not sure what your point is with this remark, but I’ll respond anyway. France and Germany are technically both republics. That doesn’t stop them from having strong social programs, or valuing the concept of people governing themselves.

drb
Member

thirds once again.

drb
Member

thirdsies

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I accidentally read one of Olivia’s posts, and it seems she’s still a loon. Or buffoon, or goon. I don’t know. But I do think it’s funny that she admits not understanding the post, but will argue with it anyway. Kinda sums up what she’s all about, doesn’t it?

Elrond Hubbard
Member

What did George Bush’s “mitts” do to the economy that Barack Obama’s “monkey wrench” hasn’t compounded?

danybhoy
Member

I guess the Barney Frank scorched earth defence of Fannie & Freddie as the housing bubble was about to explode means nothing? He denied there ever was a problem, & the fact that at least 15 times, the Bush43 people tried to get Barney to see the problem that was just around the corner also means nothing to you. I get it…

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MGT_cSi7Rs

Sure Bush43 sucked on spending, & he should have vetoed a few spending bills. But he looks like a responsible fiscal conservative compared to Obama.

But like KQ said I always point out, socialism is for the people, NOT the socialist. Good for thee, NOT for me. But you already know that, but the key to it is the power of hypocrisy. The ability to live it up & have those on the bottom buy into the BS that socialism sells, which in the USA is known as PROGRESSIVISM, is the trick. It does’nt work, history shows it’s never worked, & that won’t stop this collection of collectivists from trying again. They will nudge us toward it, & if enough resist, they will then push. If too many still resist, then they shove, & when that does’nt do the trick, it goes to the next level…

KimmyQueen
Guest

This guy is fantastic. More of him please.

He is correct. Although one can discuss that Louis the 14th meant that (on his deathbed or something before he died) as a way of lamenting the damage that he WOULD do on his descendants (and it was his great-grandson that got the guillotine so he was right). Even if he indeed said it as a lament, it was too little… too late. Way too late for him to make any discernable changes to his lifestyle and the lifestyle of his descendants. It meant that he had to give up his place in power, but he knew that it was unsustainable and that his descendants will not be able to maintain it which meant of course that someone down the line wsa going to receive all the punishment and hate (and death) that in all reality was due to him.

Like DanyHBoy states socialism is only for the plebians not for the actual socialist. Reagan was right only those that truly know what socialism is hate it. Those that claim to like it do not know what it really is, just know what it can do for them.

Olivia
Member

Kimmy, you need to bone up on French history before presuming to pontificate to the rest of us. First, it wasn’t Louis XIV, but Louis XV, who was credited with that statement. Second, it wasn’t his great grandson, but his grandson, who was guillotined. Third, we don’t know what specifically Louis XV was referring to in that statement—if, in fact, he actually said it. And, fourth, it wasn’t the king’s “lifestyle,” specifically, that led to the French Revolution. It was the whole antiquated system, that levied ruinous taxes on laborers and farmers, in order that the wealthy aristocracy might live in splendor at Versailles, without having to pay taxes themselves.

If that kind of system sounds familiar to you, it should—–because that’s exactly the kind of inequities we liberals are currently opposing. Except that, in this case, the inequities aren’t based on the blueness of one’s blood, but on the size of one’s bank account.

hisham
Guest

Oblivia, you are so FOS!

KimmyQueen
Guest

Olivia,

I will honor you with a response, you should be happy as it is really going to have to be the last time. However I will respond because, you are correct. I made a mistake it was 15th not the 14th. I was thinking of the Sun King and not his grandson the 15th. Louis the 16th was the 15th grandson. So yes Olivia you are for once correct. I do own up to my mistakes (unlike “others” meaning you). I do apologize to all the people for the mistake however my PONTIFICATION as you call stands correct.

The King’s “lifestyle” WAS the antiquated system. He HELD all power until himself and his elitists. You went from being right on something back down to being an idiot. Yes it is possible to determined what he meant, the entire thing was unsustainable. The King as Divine and the entire court system of worship that the 14th established previously did lead in great part to the French Revolution. That is in great part a reason for the American Revolution. If you want to believe that Obama and other socialists are not trying to mimic this though, you are an idiot indeed. This is the purpose of socialists: For SOME to be on top and everyone else to be on the bottom. The Court and the System of France for at least 100 years before the Revolution was unsustainable because a small group of people held all the power and money. This is what socialism is all about. This is exactly what Reagan said: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iShCXx_xZDQ (excellent audio on Reagan on socialism)

Reagan said: “How do you tell a Communist?
Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin.
And how do you tell an anti-Communist?
It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.” It can be applied to socialism as well.

Of course you won’t give it any credence, because it is Reagan, but it is still the truth.

Now Olivia I did apologize for my mistake it was minor and it was not bad intended, but the rest of my posts still stands and the author of the article is correct. Now Olivia I shall continue to enjoy the small yet pleasurable activity to thumbing you down. Hopefully one day as we all agree to ignore you completely you may go back and rot in the cesspool that is Media Matters or whatever the hell you came from.

Bye Olivia it was not nice knowing you.

Olivia
Member

I will honor you with a response, you should be happy as it is really going to have to be the last time. However I will respond because, you are correct. I made a mistake it was 15th not the 14th. I was thinking of the Sun King and not his grandson the 15th. Louis the 16th was the 15th grandson.
***********************
Oh, gosh, Kimmy, I hate to bring this up since you’re “honoring” me so much and all, but in fact Louis XV was Louis XIV’s GREAT grandson. Sorry, but you know what sticklers we liberals are for truth and accuracy. 😉

As for the rest of your post: it’s just the same right wing name calling hogwash. I suspect that most of those who yell “Marxist” and “Leninist!” at liberals (as well as Rush Limbaugh’s favorite accusation, “That’s straight out of Saul Alinsky’s playbook!”) are no more familiar with their teachings and/or beliefs than you seem to be with the royal Bourbon family tree. It’s just the usual far right wing ploy to capitalize on the Big Communist Scare of the fifties.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

That’s two in a row that I got to bury with the third thumb. So I feel EXTRA warm and fuzzy today.

Alien
Member

ha! in the name of alien science, i’ve given her a couple UpThumbs nearby to experiment. In the spirit of things, i did not read her comments.

As you can see, 1/3 reveals the hidden comment, 1/4 stays hidden

perlcat
Member

All for SCIENCE!!!

RockingHorseGuy
Member

You gotta love science.

jwilson07
Member

Trollivia, you need to learn some history yourself. The king invited the liberal in to ” help solve problems” and lost his head in the process. Stop blaming the rich for what your communist predecessors caused and happily followed right into a dictatorship. The entire Napoleon fiasco was directly related to policies you liberals happily keep trying over and over.

Olivia
Member

Trollivia, you need to learn some history yourself. The king invited the liberal in to ” help solve problems” and lost his head in the process. Stop blaming the rich for what your communist predecessors caused and happily followed right into a dictatorship. The entire Napoleon fiasco was directly related to policies you liberals happily keep trying over and over.

****************************
Wrong again. The French monarchy was a crumbling institution, and, like the Russian empire 130+ years later, was doomed to extinction sooner or later.

I guess you didn’t realize that Napoleon’s “dictatorship” (technically an empire, which has more in common with Bush style nation building than anything we liberals have proposed) lasted only a short time, and was replaced by first a restoration of the monarchy (which didn’t last), a republic that morphed into a second empire (ditto), and eventually a lasting republic.

Elrond Hubbard
Member

…a second empire (ditto), and eventually a lasting republic.”

The “lasting republic” was actually three republics. the Third (1870-1940), the Fourth (1946-1958) and the Fifth (1958-present).

Olivia
Member

…a second empire (ditto), and eventually a lasting republic.”

The “lasting republic” was actually three republics. the Third (1870-1940), the Fourth (1946-1958) and the Fifth (1958-present).

…a second empire (ditto), and eventually a lasting republic.”

The “lasting republic” was actually three republics. the Third (1870-1940), the Fourth (1946-1958) and the Fifth (1958-present).

*********************
Yes, I realize that, Elrond. Which is why I said “eventually a lasting republic.”

Elrond Hubbard
Member

Given that France has gone through five republics (and two empires) in the past two centuries, saying “eventually a lasting republic” might be unduly optimistic.

Olivia
Member

Given that France has gone through five republics (and two empires) in the past two centuries, saying “eventually a lasting republic” might be unduly optimistic.

*****************************
Possibly—–you never know. But, then again, we don’t know for sure what this country will be like in another 50 years, do we?

jwilson07
Member

Trollivia, how many jobs were given to you by a person on welfare? When did that homeless drug addict pony up the dough for your payroll? Did the black man with the gun robbing the 7-11 pay for your health insurance on his way out the door after shooting the clerk? As much as you cannot stand this fact, rich people give our jobs, food, electricity, cars, and anything else we use or need. Rampant capitalism made our world that we happily enjoy today. Stop blaming those who create wealth and jobs and pay the vast majority of taxes your liberal government squanders away on useless crap.

KimmyQueen
Guest

A poor man cannot afford to give anyone a job. I know that no one who is poor has ever given me a job. Rich people like Soros and Bono love being rich, but they want to close the gates as those coming after them (especially Soros). Poor people cannot create jobs, they NEED jobs, they cannot create it. However they are not to be used or abused either and although there are some scum rich people, I still believe that the majority are actually good people that want to help their communities.

“Did the black man with the gun robbing the 7-11 pay for your health insurance on his way out the door after shooting the clerk?” I was with you until this part. Tell me frankly are you a racist? Yes crime committed by black men in particular is an issue and it is real, however depending on the demographics of the area (who lives there) a young POOR white man could very easily steal from a convenience store or hijiack a car. The person could have been any race the link is their status in poverty and also in evil nature as many poor OF COURSE do not steal or kill anyone.

jwilson07
Member

Not that many white male college graduates knocking over 7-11’s now a days. Sorry if the black part scares you libs so badly, now go running to Al and Jessie and give them 20 million more dollars for their out of wedlock babies and Cadillacs.

Olivia
Member

Not that many white male college graduates knocking over 7-11′s now a days.
******************
Might have something to do with the fact that they have saleable skills. Whereas poor, undereducated Americans, regardless of racial identity, often don’t. Ya think?

Alien
Member

you clearly haven’t been paying attention

KimmyQueen
Guest

You are a fool. First because you assume I am a liberal. That is absurd and I am deeply insulted. Second you are most definetly a racist, I am highly disgusted by racists. Third, yes kids who have opportunities in life do not steal from convenience shops, they don’t have to. That was my point, however a poor white kid without opportunities in life is as capable of stealing as anyone else. Your racism is blinding you. It is racists like you that give the conservative movement a bad name.

The number one reason people steal is because they are poor or desinfranchised. Then they are the others who are just professional criminals and they are evil. People do not steal because of the color of their skin.

White people stealing:

What if he had been black? Would they have supported him in this case? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCYvtz8oNdw

White chicks stealing: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5V1KztpKO4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0z25jmke9jI He probably could afford it because he is white right? so… why did he steal again? He is a thief and he can’t breathe and they have no rights.. why? because he is white? If he was black it will be a-ok right?

white 16 year old rapes a 7 year old special needs girl (who is black): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VuPWSXVv5iA&feature=related has a long violent history but it is all good, because he is white.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eH3BoulRrl0&feature=related 6 white people assault and rape a black woman for a week.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b77b34wOAhE&feature=related White man beats up an Army Reservist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hrOSL85ZMck

People are evil the color is not the most important thing it is what is inside. If a person is ugly and evil inside they will do ugly and evil things.

It is not appropriate for any black person to commit any crime against any person and even though those numbers may be high it could because of reasons like poverty, no education and background. Not an excuse, but a reason. However white people with the same issues ALSO do horrible things. If you cannot be reasoned with then the only thing to say is that you are just a racist fool and I want nothing else to do with you.

Olivia
Member

“Did the black man with the gun robbing the 7-11 pay for your health insurance on his way out the door after shooting the clerk?” I was with you until this part.
***************************
For once I agree 100% with you, Kimmy. I was thinking the same thing, but I left it alone, since I assumed the original poster was just doing a bit of pot stirring.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

But I still gave you a thumbs down, because you’re just so,…..Olivia.

Olivia
Member

Trollivia, how many jobs were given to you by a person on welfare? When did that homeless drug addict pony up the dough for your payroll? Did the black man with the gun robbing the 7-11 pay for your health insurance on his way out the door after shooting the clerk? As much as you cannot stand this fact, rich people give our jobs, food, electricity, cars, and anything else we use or need.
*********************
So, in other words, you want to toady to their demands for special tax breaks, in hopes that they’ll be so grateful they’ll hire a few currently unemployed Americans. Yeah, and a magical fairy godmother will suddenly appear in a puff of smoke, and turn them into princes and princesses, too.

Come on, JWilson, that’s a popular talking point, but it ignores one truism about self made millionaires: They got rich because they knew how to keep money flowing in one direction—-their own. No savvy millionaire is going to hire more employees unless his business needs them. And his business isn’t going to need more employees, unless it’s doing well financially. And the business isn’t likely to do well financially, if ordinary Americans can’t afford to buy what it’s manufacturing or selling.

So it’s not millionaires that our economy depends on, much less huge tax breaks for millionaires. It’s the people who buy the goods and services American businesses sell. And forcing these people to pick up the tab for special perks for the wealthy and powerful, or dumping more debt on them in order to allow those special perks, is NOT likely to make them bigger consumers.

By the way, every one of your hypothetical examples would, in fact, improve my job security. The gunshot victim at the 7-11, the homeless drug addict picked up for erratic behavior and the welfare recipient who lacks health insurance will all, sooner or later, end up in my ER. Just saying…… 😉

whiskeyriver
Guest

Just like all gooberment employees, you depend on the lame, the lazy, the weak and the illegal immigrant for your income. An ER wouldn’t need very many employees if all it had to depend on was a car wreck vitim or two a day would it? Throwing a heart attack or two in wouldn’t help much nor would the occasional broken leg.

If not for the lame, weak, lazy and illegal immigrants, along with all the government subsidies they bring to your ER, you might not have a job. Is that why you want to see tax increases? So you can see more money coming to the place you work so you can take better care of you? That sounds like a socialist idea to me.

Olivia
Member

Just like all gooberment employees, you depend on the lame, the lazy, the weak and the illegal immigrant for your income.
**********************
I’m not a government employee, Whiskey. I work for a private hospital.
**********************
An ER wouldn’t need very many employees if all it had to depend on was a car wreck vitim or two a day would it? Throwing a heart attack or two in wouldn’t help much nor would the occasional broken leg.
***********************
You’re pretty ignorant about emergency departments, if you think they’re all (and only) about illegal immigrants and an occasional car wreck victim. During a typical shift, we’ll see kidney stones, migraines, kids with croup, an asthma attack or two, a few lacerations requiring stitches, a few sprained or broken limbs; some chest pains; an allergic reaction or two; the occasional suicidal patient requiring a sitter and full overdose panel; stomach pains requiring a full workup; and a handful of nursing home patients with urinary tract infections, pneumonia, mental status changes or following a fall on their way to the bathroom.
And that doesn’t even include motor vehicle collisions.
*******************************
If not for the lame, weak, lazy and illegal immigrants, along with all the government subsidies they bring to your ER, you might not have a job. Is that why you want to see tax increases? So you can see more money coming to the place you work so you can take better care of you? That sounds like a socialist idea to me.
******************************
No, I want to see the deficit addressed. Uninsured and Medicaid patients don’t bring much revenue into the hospital, so they’re not likely to enhance my job security, Whiskey.

And speaking of whiskey: we also see and treat a lot of loudmouthed alcoholics. And, interestingly enough, most of them are native born Americans, just like you.

Starting to celebrate a little early this weekend, are we? 😉

Alien
Member

the hyper wealthy do not simply decide to create jobs with their tax cuts.. they invest in funds which tend to drive creation of jobs overseas, as the free market desires..

You want to grow jobs of sufficient mass to permeate the entire economy? You do it through small businesses and startups here in the U.S. Prime that pump with easier credit, smart regulation & tax reform. Those small businesses are the hungry ones

why a black dude robbing the 7-11?

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Small start-ups don’t normally build bridges, highways, and airports. Many of us have only worked for corporations. Either way, I have never had a poor man write me a paycheck. So the loosening of regulations, lending, and all the things that ANY business needs to prosper is what’s needed here. If it weren’t for the over-regulation and over-taxation of business, and the workers here in this country, maybe more of the jobs would stay here.

whiskeyriver
Guest

What about Mauritz Sundt? You know, M.M.Sundt now the Sundt Corp? Ever heard of Peter Keiwit & Sons? How about Herman Brown and Dan Root? As in Brown and Root now know as KBR.

All of these were “small start-ups” in the begining, built by men with drive and vision, before all the idiot rules, regulations and tax laws we have today. Who know who would be the next great builder of dams, highways and bridges could be if our government were not so dead set against small businesses.

On a more modern note look at what Andrew Grove, founder of Intel, and Bill Gates have done. How many tens of thousands of people do they employ and both started as “small start-ups”? Google, Facebook, the entire computer “revolution” was once a dream in a few mens heads. Our government has to get ut of the way, start helping small businesses instead of continually trying to put them out of business with all the asinine rules, regulations and tax laws.

Alien
Member

Well Republicans have been blocking some recent small business bills to meant to help funding.. i don’t know all the particulars, but i’d be curious to know why there can’t be some consensus.. I really do believe that these hungry little companies are the ones that grow lots of jobs all over

RockingHorseGuy
Member

Worked for all of the above, as far as the construction companies go. And I would have been glad to work for them when they were small, too. Government intervention of one sort or another has made it very difficult for a construction company to start off that way these days.

Olivia
Member

Either way, I have never had a poor man write me a paycheck.
*******************
That is a favorite (and extremely overused) talking point. But it doesn’t take into consideration that giving big tax breaks to the rich DOESN’T automatically translate into more jobs. No corporate tycoon or business owner is going to hire more personnel than he needs. And he’s not going to need more personnel if the working American public can’t afford to buy the goods and services he’s selling.

So, no matter how you try to spin it, giving those big tax breaks to the rich ends up costing us ALL dearly in the end.

Alien
Member

Another thing about businesses fleeing our shores.. I have always assumed the greatest factor in this is wage/currency disparities, dwarfing the costs of taxation and regulation here. China plays this game well, too, hoarding our dollars.

The Founders were aware of this dynamic, at some level. The power of Tariff is fundamental and we’ve essentially given it away

perlcat
Member

I agree — no self-respecting business will ignore the chance to build cars using $3 per hour labor instead of $70 per hour labor. The only thing that keeps this from driving the world labor market to a universal low is to provide some kind of economic disincentive. A tariff. The problem is, they have to be well-thought out, or will break more than they fix.

If we want it to be all one economic state, then there has to be a way of bringing the poor state up into prosperity, rather than draw the successful state into poverty. Me, I do not see that as a US responsibility. A corruptocracy like Mexico, for instance, before they want to integrate and have open borders with us, needs to not be a corruptocracy, and have a minimum level of economic success that isn’t measured in solid gold toilets for their oligarchs.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

What about the fact that the two cars that are the MOST “Made in America,” the Honda Accord, and the Toyota Camry, are both made by Japanese companies. Notice one thing. When Honda and Toyota came to America to make cars, they didn’t go to Detroit to build their factories. The workers at the American factories are paid a good wage, just not a union wage.

Alien
Member

Hey I’m all for a massive national scale infrastructure project

Just not sure how much more debt we can take on to pay for it.

I’ve never worked in construction like you (i did a day labor thing for 1 day, taking down scaffolding.. that was some hairy work). Say we booted a million guys off the dole into entry-level construction work, how long before they get productive?

perlcat
Member

Here’s the thing.

Large scale projects are heavy on drama — we are still looking at some of the ugly-assed art deco buildings from the WPA days. In a dramatic time, they make people *feel* good, but do they actually help?

I’m not so sure.

Money gets used in efficient ways and inefficient ways. In a competitive economic environment, efficiency is more pronounced, as the losers wind up contributing to the success of the winners, In a non-competitive environment, waste tends to accumulate, as the winners subsidize losers, which reduces their ability to operate at full efficiency.

On a scale of efficiencies, you want to maximize the effect and still have the capital to do the project. A single, national government entity has no competition, but can print scads of money. State governments have to compete against each other in order to generate jobs and improve their economies. They have less money money than the federal government, and if they fail, as California is doing right now, people move out.

However, the greatest amount of efficient competition comes from individuals — whether that be businesses or individuals. However, the individuals also do not have the amount of capital in any one person or business’ bank account. They use capital most efficiently, though, and as an aggregate, provide economic output much greater than any government.

Some people are simply better at doing things with money than others, just as some make better proctologists, or mechanics or whatever.

Confiscatory taxes punish the most efficient users of capital, and hand it to the least efficient users — driving down the economy by handing the architects of prosperity a disincentive to do what they do best. While some of the projects may be worthwhile, their true costs have to be looked at and taken into consideration. Any politician that demagogues fiscal policy should be immediately disqualified from discussing it, as they are using political leverage to denigrate the group most qualified to repair the economy, contributing to misery instead of alleviating it.

A WPA style project gets people out of the house and into the workforce for the duration of the program only. When the program’s over, they will still be out of a job in a recession. What people need are long-term jobs, and that can only come from making some form of economically desirable contribution to a strong economy. To do that, a more sane, less hateful attitude towards business in general* needs to be adopted by child-king & company.

To be honest, what the federal government does tax-wise doesn’t have as large an effect as the regulations, and more importantly, the threat of regulations. If Feckless Barry had at the beginning of his term befriended the Chamber of Commerce instead of Goldman Sachs & Co, and instead of using the “rich” as a foil for political clout just kept silent, he wouldn’t be running second to a ham sandwich in the presidential polls now, as our economy would have rebounded by now.

Face it, he isn’t really talking about taxing the rich anyway. That would have to be a form of property tax. He wants to tax their *income* and any reasonably sophisticated person making over $250,000 net and isn’t a lawyer or medical professional has the financial resources to structure their income to completely evade these taxes. This tax only destroys small businesses, as our dim bulb of a president is unable to comprehend the difference between revenue and income in a sole proprietorship, which is causing untold amounts of economic devastation. If I had that kind of income, it would take me about a week to structure the revenue and business structure to avoid almost all taxes except for a token amount. His “rich people making over $250,000” is a Royal Nonesuch, and ought to have dead cats and rotten tomatoes thrown at it.

Socialistically speaking, though, it was smart, as it completely destroys the uniquely American middle class. By putting up this straw dog for people to hate on, nobody has noticed that by definition, there is now just “rich” and “poor”. A socialist’s dream — get the largely contented American public to become dissatisfied with their lot of making $249,999 a year.

His demonization of the “rich” may play well to knuckleheads, but any truly rich person knows how to dodge taxes. It’s an art form, and they all take great pride in doing it, regardless of political affiliation. Just ask John “D-student” Kerry where he parks his yacht, and why.

*his cronies seem to be doing all right, but I don’t see that as a good thing — just the same brand of mercantilism that got us into the current recession that is being converted into a repression.

Alien
Member

this is a lot to chew on my erudite friend.. I’ll quickly concur we don’t need no ugly ass art deco buildings (though the artwork was phenomenal in Bioshock).. I got all kinds crap to take care of around the house so i’ll get back later

RockingHorseGuy
Member

One fact that eludes many of the tax and spend loonies is this. The LEAST PRODUCTIVE thing you can do with your money is give it to the government.

Alien
Member

That may be true a lot of the time, but.. I could take my $dollar and go to Walgreens and buy a cheap Chinese manufactured piece of plastic crap toy (made in Fake Vomit Factory #9, as one of my friends like to joke, as he still thinks their entire economy is planned), and let my kids break it within 3 hours

Or that same dollar could flow into munitions provisioning at Rammstein or Kandahar Air Field

KimmyQueen
Guest

I agree. Even though corporations can get too big and sometimes customer service sucks (Comcast I am looking at you), there has to be less government for all (benign) businesses to thrive and thus create more jobs. Some regulation is necessary for those that become illegal or unethical of course.

KimmyQueen
Guest

That is true, even though corporations do help local communities, corporations can also wrech and destroy local communities when they go belly up or decide to move because of taxes and what not. That is actually a good reason to tax appropriately.

In any case what you said is absolute. The driving force are small and medium size businesses. People who are high medium class to rich who can live comfortably and have REASONS to continue providing jobs and growing their businesses. No body is going to create a business and jobs JUST for the pleasure of creating a business or jobs, pay all taxes and then go home with a measly pay. People create jobs and businesses to enrich themselves and make their lives easier and especially in the cases where it was a prime motivator, they help their local communities thrive.

A lot of liberals want people to create jobs, but have nothing left for themselvs after govt takes everything after they pay bills and payroll. That is not sustainable.

Olivia
Member

A lot of liberals want people to create jobs, but have nothing left for themselvs after govt takes everything after they pay bills and payroll. That is not sustainable.

*************************
It’s not true, either. Most liberals want small business owners to have incentives to maintain and expand their businesses as appropriate. What we oppose are the tax cuts for the wealthiest people in the country, and the much cheaper taxes on investment income. Why should wealthy investors get bigger tax breaks than ordinary people who work on someone’s payroll for a living?

David Bishop
Member

Because they don’t. After liberals phase out the Bush-Era tax cuts (which affected everyone, not just the rich by the way), the highest tax amount bracket will forfeit 59% of their earnings. I paid -15% last year. How is that fair? Everyone should pay the same percentage.

whiskeyriver
Guest

If what Ollie says below, you made $26 grand and have 3 kids, you better quit going to H&R Blockheads to get your taxes done. NO family of five, making less than $40,000 per year, has to pay federal income taxes.

You can’t count social security or any state taxes that come out of your check, the debate is about federal income taxes alone.

RockingHorseGuy
Member

I think the negative sign before the 15% in question is being missed. You’re saying you GOT paid 15%, right? Which is wrong. Why is it my fault you have three kids?

perlcat
Member

It is the power of unintended consequences and poor planning, and politicians too scared to stop the gravy train.

When we subsidize grain, for example, we pay to have it held off the market, only to dump it on the market later. Same for gubberment cheese & other commodities. Even when they try to take it off the US market, they dump it on some poor agrarian economy, so that the farmers *there* take it in the shorts.

Even alcohol subsidies devolve into silliness. It isn’t even taking food grains off the market. The grain’s nutritional value is improved by having yeast convert the sugars to proteins, and the same livestock that would get fed the raw corn get fed this instead.

If you read the papers in ag communities, and know who are the wealthy farmers, you will find that most of the subsidies go to them, and very little to small farmers. They will have their farm split into many different entities, so that none of them hit the max payout. The farmer, wife, the farmer & wife, the kid, the farmer & kid, the wife & kid, the farmer & wife & kid. It is really irritating to read it.

Alien
Member

Country needs kids more than ungrown corn, and we subsidize that too. It is a fascinating question

Olivia
Member

Because they don’t. After liberals phase out the Bush-Era tax cuts (which affected everyone, not just the rich by the way), the highest tax amount bracket will forfeit 59% of their earnings. I paid -15% last year. How is that fair? Everyone should pay the same percentage.

*************************
You told me, several weeks ago, that you made $26,000 last year. I made more than twice that (as did my husband); yet we don’t have the expense of three small children, as you do. Therefore, I think it only fair that I pay more into our system than you do. Especially if we ever hope to address this huge deficit.

And, by the way, the truly rich (those who live off investments, rather than working at a job) pay only 15% on that income at most. So they are indeed making out better than working Americans. MUCH better.

whiskeyriver
Guest

I noticed you left out the percentage of your combined $100 grand salary you and hubby paid in taxes. Was this deliberate or just a little slip of the keyboard?

Trying to compare percentages is asinine. 15% of Davids wage is nothing compared to 15% of George Soros’ wage so explain to us again how the rich are not paying their fair share?

Buck O'Fama
Guest

VDH has a website http://www.victorhanson.com/index.html
and his work appeals regularly at pajamas media
http://pajamasmedia.com/victordavishanson/

Sidekick
Member

Socialism is for the people not the Socialists.

Progressive Hemrrhoid
Member
Progressive Hemrrhoid

Hey Boneheado, Pay your taxes yet?

hisham
Guest

This just proves what the socialists are so adamant about denying about themselves; the are actually the greedy, bigoted, misogynistic, racist, homophobic, add an ad hominem here, etc, etc, etc, ad nauseam.

wpDiscuz