@averagejoe1 saidSo workers who get sick or have members of their family get sick are "losers"?
To be clear, we must live with the laws our legislators create. Corps (stockholders) can take all the risk they want within those parameters. I happen to own Delta. If you don't, then what they do, and their stockholders, have nothing to do with you. But you get to fly them! I love this country;
Anyway, some bailouts are there for a purpose.....there is an old sa ...[text shortened]... p trying to muddy the water on the clear fact that Biden is going to cost the middle class big-time.
Families with children are "losers"?
Seniors are "losers"?
Those are the groups who would benefit from the proposed programs you complained about in your OP. They represent a substantial percentage, probably a majority, of this country's population. All "losers".
Right wingers really hate this country.
2 edits
@averagejoe1 said
To be clear, we must live with the laws our legislators create. Corps (stockholders) can take all the risk they want within those parameters. I happen to own Delta. If you don't, then what they do, and their stockholders, have nothing to do with you. But you get to fly them! I love this country;
Anyway, some bailouts are there for a purpose.....there is an old sa ...[text shortened]... p trying to muddy the water on the clear fact that Biden is going to cost the middle class big-time.
Anyway, some bailouts are there for a purpose.....there is an old saying ,,,Too Big to Fail. So companies like Delta or Chrysler, are necessary to our society.
Um, Joe, are you ok? You are again advocating socialism here. The ruling class controls the means of production? This sentence could have been written by Marx.
Corporations as a whole are necessary to a healthy capitalist society, but individual ones are not. In fact they cannot, because if a government does not allow individual businesses to fail (because it would hurt shareholder stock price) then we're in crony capitalism mode where only shareholders benefit from government spending. Even this is still better than the socialist system you describe. Manufacturing and air travel are necessary to our society, not Chrysler and Delta.
I don't care about anything Delta does, until they take tax dollars and don't give them back. Individual welfare programs are not socialism, at least as defined by Marx. But that bailout was socialist. The farm bailout was socialist. The big bank bailout? You get my point. Karl Marx's philosophy was all about the state defining the mode of production, which is a lynchpin in the current GOP, but it's not a principle of conservative thought.
You should delete this before your conservative friends find out you're a socialist.
@no1marauder saiddemocrats have been around a long time, why is it NOW that they are going to help theses folks? you fall for it every time dont you?
So workers who get sick or have members of their family get sick are "losers"?
Families with children are "losers"?
Seniors are "losers"?
Those are the groups who would benefit from the proposed programs you complained about in your OP. They represent a substantial percentage, probably a majority, of this country's population. All "losers".
Right wingers really hate this country.
@mott-the-hoople saidWhen is it that Republicans will get around to fixing border security and runaway government spending?
democrats have been around a long time, why is it NOW that they are going to help theses folks? you fall for it every time dont you?
@Mott-The-Hoople
You really are a piece of work. You PUKE out that shyte like you actually think you are DEBATING?
Pretty pathetic debating tactic spanky.
@mott-the-hoople saidSimilar or more expansive proposals have been circulating among progressives for decades.
democrats have been around a long time, why is it NOW that they are going to help theses folks? you fall for it every time dont you?
It's good to see almost all Democratic officials now supporting them.
@no1marauder said===Biden is certainly not proposing to repeal Trump's tax cuts in their entirety.===
Most of your claims are easily proven falsehoods. Biden is certainly not proposing to repeal Trump's tax cuts in their entirety. Nor does the slight proposed increase in the corporation tax fall principally on workers or the CEOs of the big corporations wouldn't be pouring tens of millions of dollars into lobbying efforts to defeat it.
No more time now, but you get the drift.
As a classical Republican and a deficit hawk, I'm in favor of repealing all or substantially all of the Trump tax cut (even though it would cost me personally thousands of dollars per year). We couldn't afford the Trump tax cut at the time, and we can afford it less today.
@mchill saidWith all due respect, can you please highlight what I said above that is disorganized soundbites and talking points?
Dear Joe - I want to you to know I think you're a good guy, but when I read your posts, which are little more than a disorganized jumble of conservative media soundbites and talking points, I feel nothing but genuine pity. 🙁
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams
@no1marauder saidfalling for it again 🙄
Similar or more expansive proposals have been circulating among progressives for decades.
It's good to see almost all Democratic officials now supporting them.
1 edit
@no1marauder saidCrap,another Liberal ploy. Just great Marauder, now I have to type the obvious to your readers. A loser is a loser, look it up. A person who is down and out due to sickness or no fault of their own are not losers. At last count, there were 40M of them. These folks need government help, I say support them to the max.
So workers who get sick or have members of their family get sick are "losers"?
Families with children are "losers"?
Seniors are "losers"?
Those are the groups who would benefit from the proposed programs you complained about in your OP. They represent a substantial percentage, probably a majority, of this country's population. All "losers".
Right wingers really hate this country.
Then all the money left over put to good use. I know!!!...Infrastructure! Now we're talkin'. Let losers
work things or starve, sorry, but I do not care.
There are many programs to buy into to cover everyone else in your examples of families with children.. or seniors. You are saying that they don't do that? No insurance, no preparation for retirement? Not meaning to be blunt, but are we sposed to stop what we are doing, and the funding of our own lives, to go over to their house and get them all squared away?
Granted there are some programs, existing now, for the truly needy who ignored such preparation, so I guess we need a govt agency to let them come in to prove that we need to to do something about it, not unlike migrants having to prove how they are entitled to asylum.
I'll stop here, so as not to cloudy up these seminal points, these issues. Can you comment on just the above? And no sense saying things like "everything you write is ludicrous,", since this is not about me.
@averagejoe1 saidLOL. Business world? Bankruptcy is not supposed to be "good business". It's supposed to be a mechanism for eliminating failed companies. You already wrote that certain corporations (Delta and Chrysler and Morgan-Stanley) should be government funded to control production. That's socialism, sir.
Yes, as I mentioned yesterday. The business world. It can be good business. One size does not fit all, so we chapter 7, or 11, or others.
@wildgrass saidYour premise is weak, that corps are necessary to a healthy capitalistic society, when you do not go a step further and say..."As long there is not one certain circumstance where they all go down the tubes together." Say all employees of all airlines walk out....or maybe just the mechanics. You thus say the govt should let them all crumble, which the would. No bailout.Anyway, some bailouts are there for a purpose.....there is an old saying ,,,Too Big to Fail. So companies like Delta or Chrysler, are necessary to our society.
Um, Joe, are you ok? You are again advocating socialism here. The ruling class controls the means of production? This sentence could have been written by Marx.
Corporations as a whole are necessar ...[text shortened]... ive thought.
You should delete this before your conservative friends find out you're a socialist.
Your references to "shareholder stock price, capitalism, government spending" are totally irrelevant to the premise that I present here. Re-read it and try to erase those references please.
"Take tax dollars and don't give back">. I agree 100%. Make the corp (ala the Shareholders ) pay it back when the planes get flying again. Making money!! (sorry, Suzanne).
In this discussion, I ain't thinking about Marx. I ain't even thinking about socialism. I'm thinking about competent corps and related govt remedies.....help the corps or not! How can you say I am into Socialism when I clearly say the owners of the corps (the shareholders own the corps, they hire the officers that run it) should be personally responsible for costs and for paying debts of the corp, including money that was "LOANED" to them by the federal government????
Am I going to have to come down there!!?? Wait, is Suzianne there?.......
1 edit
@averagejoe1 saidNo. Again you're presenting hypothetical scenarios for government intervention but it's already happened in real life several times and you supported those moves.
Your premise is weak, that corps are necessary to a healthy capitalistic society, when you do not go a step further and say..."As long there is not one certain circumstance where they all go down the tubes together." Say all employees of all airlines walk out....or maybe just the mechanics. You thus say the govt should let them all crumble, which the would. No bailout. ...[text shortened]... eral government????
Am I going to have to come down there!!?? Wait, is Suzianne there?.......
Shareholder stock price is critical here. Without the bailouts, the stock price would crumble and rich investors would lose money. That's how it's supposed to happen in healthy capitalism. Risk needs to be a component of business practices and investing or it's just rich people getting richer ad infinitum. The bailouts are not designed to keep the flights in the air, they are designed to artificially inflate the stock market. That's the ruling class deciding which companies survive major crises and who stays rich.
While you may not be thinking about Marx, you are reinventing his philosophy in your defense of Republican spending programs.