Giving janitors, teachers, waitresses, cops, firefighters, cashiers and plumbers a break is not socialism!

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Of course it's not socialism. Everyone knows that. Some just choose to play dumb on that front.

[IAMX 3,055]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

[Niels Bohr 72]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

ROFL

[Danno 1,228]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

Part of the confusion are the terms being used.

Few people or businesses are "Giving" money. Govt "takes" it via threat.

When a Business or person does not pay a tax...it is not "giving" them money, they are simply

"keeping" their own money.

Liberals love to talk about "giving" yet research shows liberal donate a whole lot less of their "Own" money to charity than conservatives do... why is that?

I guess they feel they *already "gave" at the ballot box* when they voted someone else a tax hike?

After this short lesson sinks in... we will cover the socialistic attitudes and how they are manifested in people who feel it is there calling in life to take money from Mr A to give to Mr B.

(some call this "spreading the money around")

[IAMX 3,055]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

Part of the confusion are the terms being used.

Few people or businesses are "Giving" money. Govt "takes" it via threat.

When a Business or person does not pay a tax...it is not "giving" them money, they are simply

"keeping" their own money.

Liberals love to talk about "giving" yet research shows liberal donate a whole lot less of their "Own" money to charity than conservatives do... why is that?

I guess they feel they *already "gave" at the ballot box* when they voted someone else a tax hike?

After this short lesson sinks in... we will cover the socialistic attitudes and how they are manifested in people who feel it is there calling in life to take money from Mr A to give to Mr B.

(some call this "spreading the money around")

Evidently you have no idea what a subsidy is. This is money for nothing. Or to help or bail out a business. You just witnessed one. Heavily favored by Republicans. Many people here post with DSL with POTS. This is subsidized too. Additionally, with POTS, and cable, they also get subsidies for franchising laws, in other words, so they can have a government endorsed monopoly.

If you think socialism isn't alive for business, you need to pull that head out of the sand.

Notice also how I talk about useful things, none of most of the blather you're going on about.

Edited October 20, 2008 by SRVT

[dalegg 143]

I like that he is defensive about being called a Socialist. It tells me he recognizes that that is bad thing.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I like that he is defensive about being called a Socialist. It tells me he recognizes that that is bad thing.

It would be even better if he'd recognize that that's what he is.

[Danno 1,228]

I like this part of SRVT's post.

<<<Or to help or bail out a business. You just witnessed one. Heavily favored by Republicans.>>>

Ahhhh.. it was Some of the Republican who were draggin their feet on this, not Dems.

And Barak was certainly a "Bail-out cheerleader". (along with Mr. lefty Johnny McCain)

Actually it might be informative if you tell us what leading Democrats were against it?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

The Dimocrats do nothing, know nothing, are responsible for nothing. Bush runs the entire government on his own.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Actually it might be informative if you tell us what leading Democrats were against it?

Senator Feingold, one of the only true economic lefties in Congress.

[Danno 1,228]

It's socialism. Giving government money to support business isn't socialism. Giving government money to support people is socialism. I make perfect sense.

Part of the confusion are the terms being used.

Few people or businesses are "Giving" money. Govt "takes" it via threat.

When a Business or person does not pay a tax...it is not "giving" them money, they are simply

"keeping" their own money.

Liberals love to talk about "giving" yet research shows liberal donate a whole lot less of their "Own" money to charity than conservatives do... why is that?

I guess they feel they *already "gave" at the ballot box* when they voted someone else a tax hike?

After this short lesson sinks in... we will cover the socialistic attitudes and how they are manifested in people who feel it is there calling in life to take money from Mr A to give to Mr B.

(some call this "spreading the money around")

Evidently you have no idea what a subsidy is. This is money for nothing. Or to help or bail out a business. You just witnessed one. Heavily favored by Republicans. Many people here post with DSL with POTS. This is subsidized too. Additionally, with POTS, and cable, they also get subsidies for franchising laws, in other words, so they can have a government endorsed monopoly.

If you think socialism isn't alive for business, you need to pull that head out of the sand.

Notice also how I talk about useful things, none of most of the blather you're going on about.

Sure we know all about "Subsidies".

Thats kinda like when you dream that cars will one day run on corn or like-products and you pay farmers or car manufacturers to "get on board" with your scheme to bring it all about because you promised the country we would be "energy independent within the decade.

(even though you are against drilling or Nuclear).

[Cassie 8]

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

God forbid we look out for others, so we as a collective are better for it, than focus solely on me myself and I.

Do you mean "we" the people, or do you mean the government as benevolent surrogate? Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Do you advocate income redistribution by force?

Progressive taxation, which is the model we use in this country (and which McCain has not disavowed), redistributes income by definition. So what exactly are you on about?