Forcing Socialism upon the American people

[Smyrna]

@Gravityspeak

So true. If he’d done nothing, there would have been no failed tariff plan, fewer bankrupted farmers, and less of your tax dollars sent to families who suffered under trump’s failed plan.

Amirite?!?!?!?

Yes…on the part highlighted.

[Smyrna]

That the imbalance is reduced, US producers are more profitable and money is repatriated.

[WuWei]

Constitution. Local. Local.

[carpe_diem]

But I thought that Bernie Sanders, and Socialism was totally
against Corporations and the 1 percent? hahaha. lmao!!! lol.

[hindsight]

@Smyrna

@AlexMcAlpine

And to the streets with those who have not been so blessed?

What do you mean by you’ve been very ‘blessed’, anyway? You haven’t had to work hard for your income? Your parents set you up with a good education and a good inheritance?

Life is not fair. It’s like running up an escalator going down. The speed varies. Some times…it’s all you’ve got and you’re going backwards. Many quit. Every once in a great, great while…the escalator reverses and sometimes at a high rate of speed…but…you must be on the escalator.

Impressive response, it reminds me of the poetry class I took in junior high school.

You might as well have just posted “I got mine, screw everybody else” and it would have saved you the effort.

[Smyrna]

@hindsight

Impressive response, it reminds me of the poetry class I took in junior high school.

You might as well have just posted “I got mine, screw everybody else” and it would have saved you the effort.

…more like…if you’re a lumberjack, prepare a well sharpened axe, get in the woods and then swing your ass off…ONLY then…can you expect trees to fall.

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

That the imbalance is reduced, US producers are more profitable and money is repatriated.

Okay so the metric is three things.

1. Trade Imbalance is reduced… that one is easy enough to agree on.

2. US producers are more profitable … this is one I think we need a little more specificity on. Are we speaking of an average of all sectors? Profitable as compared to what date? Are we talking Stock Price? Just need a little more on this one.

3. Money is repatriated. Sounds good… would like a date to compare it to… thats all.

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

Okay so the metric is three things.

1. Trade Imbalance is reduced… that one is easy enough to agree on.
2. US producers are more profitable … this is one I think we need a little more specificity on. Are we speaking of an average of all sectors? Profitable as compared to what date? Are we talking Stock Price? Just need a little more on this one.
3. Money is repatriated. Sounds good… would like a date to compare it to… thats all.

The metric of business profitability is an increase of tax revenue generated.

Compare it to the date prior to the tax cut being implemented.

[BlueTex]

@Smyrna

…more like…if you’re a lumberjack, prepare a well sharpened axe, get in the woods and then swing your ass off…ONLY then…can you expect trees to fall.

And when a tree falls on you?

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

Okay so the metric is three things.

1. Trade Imbalance is reduced… that one is easy enough to agree on.
2. US producers are more profitable … this is one I think we need a little more specificity on. Are we speaking of an average of all sectors? Profitable as compared to what date? Are we talking Stock Price? Just need a little more on this one.
3. Money is repatriated. Sounds good… would like a date to compare it to… thats all.

The metric of business profitability is an increase of tax revenue generated.

Compare it to the date prior to the tax cut being implemented.

All tax revenue or just revenue generated by corporate taxes?

[Smyrna]

@Jezcoe

All tax revenue or just revenue generated by corporate taxes?

If I’m an employee or a supplier of this business that just repatriated, wouldn’t I want to consider the total positive impact?

[Smyrna]

@BlueTex

And when a tree falls on you?

…if nobody heard it, did it actually happen?

[Jezcoe]

@Smyrna

@Jezcoe

All tax revenue or just revenue generated by corporate taxes?

If I’m an employee or a supplier of this business that just repatriated, wouldn’t I want to consider the total positive impact?

That is not what I am getting towards. Just trying to agree on what the metric of using tax revenue to determine business profitability.

That’s all.

[Blackwolf]

@WuWei

I left your nation long ago. I was just visiting any way.

What does this mean? Have you expatriated? Renounced your American citizenship? Stopped paying taxes?

Or is it more of a philisophical stance?

[BlueTex]

@Smyrna

…if nobody heard it, did it actually happen?

Guess who pays for the disability?

[Optrader]

@FloridaYankee

@carpe_diem

Socialism is when the government owns the means of production.
Businesses therefore would be government owned, and government
run.

Who is calling for govt. to own business? Please provide evidence.

When government taxes businesses at 70% or higher, as Nutzio- Cortez is calling for, who do you think effectively owns that business?

[Optrader]

@Jezcoe

@coolidge

As our earlier settlers found out socialism doesnt work.
Redirect Notice

That is based on a false premise of the charters of Plymouth and Jamestown.

It wasn’t socialism that caused the economic conditions, but the fact that the colonies were owned in whole by the investors who paid for the settlements.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/human-interest/2014/11/thanksgiving-socialism-the-strange-and-persistent-right-wing-myth-that-thanksgiving-celebrates-the-pilgrims-discovery-of-capitalism.amp

Under the terms of the contract … for the first seven years no individual settler could own a plot of land. To ensure that each farmer received his fair share of good or bad land, the slices were rotated each year, but this was counterproductive. Nobody had any reason to put in extra hours and effort to improve a plot if next season another family received the benefit.”
The pilgrims’ transition—which, again, happened after the first Thanksgiving—can indeed be used to illustrate the benefits of individualism or the tragedy of the commons. But the Rush Limbaugh crowd should note that the settlers at Plymouth were rebelling against the rules set by a corporation, not against the strictures of some Stalinist collective farm or a hippie commune.

Do you liberals have any capability at all to look beyond semantics? It didn’t matter a fig to the settlers WHO the land belonged to, whether it was a corporation or their neighbor…The defacto reasons that caused the failure was exactly the same reasons that socialism always fails.

People expect to be able to keep the fruits of their own labor. They expect to be compensated according to the effort they put in and they will always resent when someone else is given the fruit of their labor, especially if they perceived the receiving person didn’t work as hard. Production under such a system will ALWAYS be reduced down to the lowest common denominator. ALWAYS! The truth is, regardless of land ownership, success depended on socialist labor ideas for success…

The other thing left out of the story is that it wasn’t just farming labor that was shared and it wasn’t just the men doing the labor. You guys are the ones who are trying to rewrite history and con people with false narratives.

[Jezcoe]

@Optrader

@Jezcoe

@coolidge

As our earlier settlers found out socialism doesnt work.
Redirect Notice

That is based on a false premise of the charters of Plymouth and Jamestown.

It wasn’t socialism that caused the economic conditions, but the fact that the colonies were owned in whole by the investors who paid for the settlements.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/human-interest/2014/11/thanksgiving-socialism-the-strange-and-persistent-right-wing-myth-that-thanksgiving-celebrates-the-pilgrims-discovery-of-capitalism.amp

Under the terms of the contract … for the first seven years no individual settler could own a plot of land. To ensure that each farmer received his fair share of good or bad land, the slices were rotated each year, but this was counterproductive. Nobody had any reason to put in extra hours and effort to improve a plot if next season another family received the benefit.”
The pilgrims’ transition—which, again, happened after the first Thanksgiving—can indeed be used to illustrate the benefits of individualism or the tragedy of the commons. But the Rush Limbaugh crowd should note that the settlers at Plymouth were rebelling against the rules set by a corporation, not against the strictures of some Stalinist collective farm or a hippie commune.

Do you liberals have any capability at all to look beyond semantics? It didn’t matter a fig to the settlers WHO the land belonged to, whether it was a corporation or their neighbor…The defacto reasons that caused the failure was exactly the same reasons that socialism always fails.

People expect to be able to keep the fruits of their own labor. They expect to be compensated according to the effort they put in and they will always resent when someone else is given the fruit of their labor, especially if they perceived the receiving person didn’t work as hard. Production under such a system will ALWAYS be reduced down to the lowest common denominator. ALWAYS! The truth is, regardless of land ownership, success depended on socialist labor ideas for success…

The other thing left out of the story is that it wasn’t just farming labor that was shared and it wasn’t just the men doing the labor. You guys are the ones who are trying to rewrite history and con people with false narratives.

It’s not semantics. The settlements were not operating under anything that was near of being a sembalence of Socialism.

Yes they were pretty much not working for the fruits of their own labor but it wasn’t because of some misguided social experiment it was becuase they were shipping the fruits of their labor off to the shareholders.

[KentuckyGuy]

I think if actual “Marxist, bread-line, having to eat dogs” socialism came to the U.S. it would be shorter lived than in Romania under Ceausescu. Most Americans are way too independent and I doubt most of our military would turn on us. Now, an increasingly burdensome welfare state supported by rising taxes is another thing.

[SottoVoce]

Take a quick look through the pages of history and tell me what happens when there is a large discrepancy between those who have access to things like medicine, food and housing, and those that don’t. It doesn’t matter what the cause of that discrepancy is, the results are the same. Are you saying you’d rather have crime, violence and insurrection over “socialist” government services?