Quote:
Originally Posted by Guest
The black caucus mentions black in its name, why does that make it racist? If they push programs that help blacks, poor whites, and Hispanics, that is not racism. "Black Lives Matter" given their recent tactics, that's racist.
Why should the Democrats run away from some of the socialist programs that they enacted into law, since the 30's(social security)? Ending Capitalism, and replacing it with socialism isn't the Democrats goal. The cost of the programs that help the less fortunate is the biggest con against Democrats. Welfare moms is old history. Getting people up to a poverty level is a problem, only to the heartless.
You want to talk about making a country unproductive lately capitalism has done that job for socialism. How productive can people in this country be, when many of their good paying jobs have been shipped overseas by capitalists? To make matters worse, the capitalist legally keep their money overseas to avoid paying taxes. They move their corporate headquarters overseas to avoid paying taxes. Capitalist in this country are hurting this country. There are no blameless Democrats, or Republicans. Neither party is following the Socialist, or Capitalist definition to the little of the law. They are both operating in a gray area.
The Republican party is handing out corporate welfare. Corporations are people. So, what is the difference between Republicans and Socialists? That road can run two ways.
Adopti
|
You're right, having "black" in a name or title does not make it racist. Courts said blacks can't be racists....only whites.
You make a false premise when suggesting that capitalism is hurting the country because corporations move overseas to avoid paying taxes. The gov is hurting the country because they FORCED the corporations overseas with their highest corporate tax rate in the world. Unions and minimum wage laws have caused business to seek workers from cheaper sources, INCLUDING illegal aliens. The gov protects illegals, so that is the gov's fault.
Corporate welfare? Nice term but it doesn't click. Corporations are offered lower taxes by means of legal tax breaks, not subsidies to encourage them to stay/locate in a location or hire some special interest group. States offer tax deferrals for so many years to entice business into their states. This creates more jobs for their residents, which means more tax revenue.
Socialism is a dream utopia for the feeble minded to wish for. Socialism only works as long as the money coming into the gov is more than what it is dishing out for social programs/welfare. The only way you can have high tax revenues is if the economy is flourishing. It won't flourish if the gov causes corporations out of business due to high tax rates. It is a prove point that the better businesses do, the higher the tax revenues.
And before you suggest that socialism has a higher rate of middle class and less poverty, you had better do a comparison test. Our poverty level includes TVs, cell phones, AC, cable, etc. Our lower class folks live as well as many middle class in socialist countries. And before you accuse me of not knowing what I am talking about, I have lived overseas most of my life and have seen how their so-called "middle class" live.
Socialism is nothing more than a dream utopia. It doesn't work. Do you think that anyone in Russia wishes to go back to the old USSR? Only those that lost their power during that period.
You will always have the elite, no matter what. Socialism doesn't make a better middle class. It just makes a big lower class and an upper class. Middle class doesn't exist in socialism.