Go back
What is it called?

What is it called?

Debates

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
This problem, very convoluted, causing many arguments and lobbying on the Hill, is not one that I could hardly take a side on.
I can only speak to your comment, that surely the legislators are more concerned with the food supply, and the balancing thereof, than they are with how much money a man makes. 🤔 I think 🤔......
If they are warring about the food supply ...[text shortened]... off, I would go for being poor and free than be a govt dependent. Oops, I have veered off-subject.
Holy moly now you're writing about promoting a socialist form of government in which food production is controlled by and paid for by the government? That's wacko.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@mchill said
When we give out billions to farmers, it's called "being fair" 🙂

When we give out billions to banks, it's called "good for the economy" 🙂

When we give out billions in grants, subsidies, and other corporate welfare goodies, to the fortune 500 it's called "Good for America" 🙂

When we give out $$ to the poor, the sick, and underprivileged, it's called "Socialism" 😠
Yeah buddy,
You know it's only called Socialism when it helps people,
not corporations.......No doubt about it,
we got the best government that money can buy...
Didn't they used to call that 'pay for play' bribery?
Nowdays it's called campaign contributions.
I really got a kick when, during the endless debate on 'OBAMA CARE',
The Republicans railed on about the evils of FEDERAL HEALTH INSURANCE,
competing with private companies, haven't they had
FEDERAL FLOOD INSURANCE for decades?

Vote Up
Vote Down

@mchill said
When we give out billions to farmers, it's called "being fair" 🙂

When we give out billions to banks, it's called "good for the economy" 🙂

When we give out billions in grants, subsidies, and other corporate welfare goodies, to the fortune 500 it's called "Good for America" 🙂

When we give out $$ to the poor, the sick, and underprivileged, it's called "Socialism" 😠
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In other words, Fascism.

It is called Fascism. Call it what it really is.

1 edit

@wildgrass said
Holy moly now you're writing about promoting a socialist form of government in which food production is controlled by and paid for by the government? That's wacko.
Where I grew up we had the lowest wealth inequality on Earth, and we also had a truly free-market ... not a fake free-market. All of our food was produced by local families and sold at family owned shops, and at a public square. You could go and pet the very same cow that produced your fresh milk (I actually did that). You had a dozen cheese makers and bread bakers, all competing to make the best cheeses and breads. Eggs, fruits and veggies were all locally grown, with profits going straight into the farmer's pockets. Now that was a free and healthy economy.


@wildgrass said
Holy moly now you're writing about promoting a socialist form of government in which food production is controlled by and paid for by the government? That's wacko.
Slanthead, this is why I said it is a conundrum. Hard too understand, I myself to do not understand it. I bet the farmers do!, no matter how they ended up being treated !

Vote Up
Vote Down

@metal-brain said
Socialism for the rich and capitalism for the poor. In other words, Fascism.

It is called Fascism. Call it what it really is.
But what you are saying is NOT the definition of Facism. Just having freedom makes us Not-facism.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@bunnyknight said
Where I grew up we had the lowest wealth inequality on Earth, and we also had a truly free-market ... not a fake free-market. All of our food was produced by local families and sold at family owned shops, and at a public square. You could go and pet the very same cow that produced your fresh milk (I actually did that). You had a dozen cheese makers and bread bakers, al ...[text shortened]... , with profits going straight into the farmer's pockets. Now that was a free and healthy economy.
Sign me up. I'll pay!

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Eladar
Yep, ESPECIALLY if YOU are not in the pool of recipients of all that corrupt cash.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
Ah, so let all those poor folks hit the road, send them all to AFGHANISTAN or Russia since they LOVE socialism SO much.

Yep, government money is ONLY for the rich so SCREW those poor folks who can't come up with the cash to live.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
Yep, ESPECIALLY if YOU are not in the pool of recipients of all that corrupt cash.
If they are going to do it, I should get my cut. If I were in charge, all welfare programs would end.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Eladar
I believe you explicitly. Which is why it is a GOOD thing you have ZERO power.
You mentioned Putin, so I assume you figure you LOVE his form of government.
So why don't you move there, I can put in some money for your plane fare.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@sonhouse said
@Eladar
I believe you explicitly. Which is why it is a GOOD thing you have ZERO power.
You mentioned Putin, so I assume you figure you LOVE his form of government.
So why don't you move there, I can put in some money for your plane fare.
I mention Putin because he understands how corrupt politicians work. The US is a joke without free elections because there is no way to verify votes.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@Eladar
Hidden in those words are admiration for Putin.
Since Putin was Trump's mentor, he is fine being yours also.

Vote Up
Vote Down

@averagejoe1 said
But what you are saying is NOT the definition of Facism. Just having freedom makes us Not-facism.
Yes it is. What freedom?

1 edit
Vote Up
Vote Down

@Metal-Brain
For one, the freedom of people like you (assuming you ARE actual humans rather than a computer generated avatar) to make statements like you do on a regular basis.
Think about this:

How long would you live if you said the same things about Putin if you were living in Russia?

HMM?

Well of course, since you ADORE Putin, you would NEVER cross HIM.