Reply With Quote
you only about wealth distribution to the 99% or 47%, not wealth sucking/rentier capitalism by the 1%
social democracies in Europe are better off, more humane than US's Darwininan, rigged capitalism, which is morally, ethically bankrupt.
and (US) Darwinian capitalism, and its financial sector, are solvent?
you only about wealth distribution to the 99% or 47%, not wealth sucking/rentier capitalism by the 1%
social democracies in Europe are better off, more humane than US's Darwininan, rigged capitalism, which is morally, ethically bankrupt.
The US survives only because we have only limited socialism.and (US) Darwinian capitalism, and its financial sector, are solvent?
I'm not ing about wealth redistribution at all. I've said countless times in this site "wealth redistribution" is the only way to create a stable middle class. My point was that social security is a form of wealth redistribution so it's intellectually inconsistent to about "wealth redistribution" but support social security.
Your critical reading skills need work, tbh.
Actually, Rand will get on his knees and start sucking off the military-industrial complex, because (like nearly every politician) he is only concerned with getting elected....
Ron has.... Rand, on the other hand, supports sanctions, which are an act of war....
not true, Rand watered down the sanctions.
not true, he does not need their money, he has his own base of support.
My point was that social security is a form of wealth redistribution so it's intellectually inconsistent to about "wealth redistribution" but support social securit
....shifting the tax burden to the poor and middle class and denying them what is rigtfully theirs, not paying taxes at all, hiding foreign income in the Caymen...as may corporations do today...now that is 'wealth redistribution'
Cup is half full... The US survives only because we have only limited capitalism...
The elite versus the corrupt M$M for your SS....
Senate Unanimously Votes Against Cuts to Social Security, Media Don't Notice
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-b...b_2951945.htmlThis is why the vote on the Sanders Amendment should have been newsworthy. Here was an opportunity for all the senators who have explicitly or implicitly supported the adoption of the chained CPI to step up and say why the switch to the chained CPI was a good and necessary measure. However, not one senator was prepared to stand up and argue the case. Not one member of the Senate wanted to go on record in support of this cut to Social Security.
With all the Republicans who pronounce endlessly on the need to cut en lement spending, there was not a single Republican senator who was prepared to say that switching the Social Security COLA to a chained CPI was a good idea. And even though President Obama has repeatedly stated as clearly as he could that he supported the switch to a chained CPI, there was not one Democratic senator who was prepared to stand up and speak in solidarity with the president.
This is a clear case of the elite lining up together against the bases of both political parties. If the chained CPI were put to a vote of the people it would lose in a landslide. But the elites are prepared to use their control of the political process and the media to do everything they can to push this cut forward.
The battle over the chained CPI provides a great case study in the state of American democracy. We will get to see whether the rich and powerful are able to attack a program that is vital to the security of almost all working people, even when the vast majority in both parties stand against them.
We had 100% capitalism from 1776 until 1913.
untrue.
You're weird.
And America had horrible living standards for 90% of the population and a non-existent middle class from 1776 to 1913.
LOL the good old days of slavery. LOL Galileo is a Wild Cobra Libertarian.
That's bull .
LOL Galileo anti-drone, pro-genocide.
LOL Student of Liberty wishing we were back in the good old slavery days.
No we didn't. Corporate welfare has been around since the very beginning. Market intervention is market intervention.
There never has been 100% capitalism involving government.
Great counter-argument!
It was about 98% capitalism, close enough. Federal spending in that era was only 2% of GDP.
LOL owning nigg!ers was pure libertarian capitalism.
When you're able to enslave one group of people as a source of free labor and commit genocide against another group to take their resources, free market capitalism works really well!
The African warlords dumped their excess population on the Europeans. You should know the seller is more culpable than the buyer.
When you're able to enslave one group of people as a source of free labor and commit genocide against another group to take their resources, free market capitalism works really well!
That's completely irrelevant to the fact your only example of free market capitalism "working" (I put that in quotes since I'd hardly call 19th century America a prosperous country with a strong middle class) was when indentured servitude was the backbone of America's economy. Whatever party is culpable has nothing to do with it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions