Topic: Does the US need a Communist Revolution?
Anonymous A started this discussion 1 year ago #118,873
Does the US need a Communist Revolution?
Anonymous B joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 14 minutes later[^] [v] #1,304,747
We're halfway there already. There's no incentive to work, because most money comes from government handouts.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 15 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,748
@previous (B)
lol patently untrue. The people getting the VAST MAJORITY of government handouts are corporations and billionaires through tax cuts. The imaginary "welfare queen" is bullshit that Reagan made up.
lol patently untrue. The people getting the VAST MAJORITY of government handouts are corporations and billionaires through tax cuts. The imaginary "welfare queen" is bullshit that Reagan made up.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 19 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,751
@previous (A)
That means nothing, because the people who own, work at, and consume from those companies are all people.
When the government gives money to corporations, it gives money to those three groups. Those people are the welfare queens, even if they don't get the money directly.
Stop the handouts and unproductive people would need to make a change to earn a living, consumers would lose their subsidies and need to be productive, and the owners would no longer be able to parasite off the rest.
Blaming "corporations" is just a way of concealing the real people who benefit from the corporations.
That means nothing, because the people who own, work at, and consume from those companies are all people.
When the government gives money to corporations, it gives money to those three groups. Those people are the welfare queens, even if they don't get the money directly.
Stop the handouts and unproductive people would need to make a change to earn a living, consumers would lose their subsidies and need to be productive, and the owners would no longer be able to parasite off the rest.
Blaming "corporations" is just a way of concealing the real people who benefit from the corporations.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 30 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,758
@previous (B)
So you're fine with the government giving away free money, just not to poor people. Hmm.
So you're fine with the government giving away free money, just not to poor people. Hmm.
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,762
If they're smart, it will be a small UBI: enough to not starve if you're homeless, but not enough for a free ride in life (still need to work).
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 4 minutes later, 37 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,764
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 39 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,769
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 6 minutes later, 45 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,775
@previous (A)
The government should take care of only essential public goods like infrastructure and security.
The government should take care of only essential public goods like infrastructure and security.
dw !p9hU6ckyqw joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 47 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,777
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 51 minutes after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,778
boof joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,798
smells more of fascist revolution among the general public more than commie
revolutions tend to bring about another kind of tyranny it seems, or worse, replace mere disfunction with wholly fucked up
revolutions tend to bring about another kind of tyranny it seems, or worse, replace mere disfunction with wholly fucked up
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 10 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,801
@1,304,769 (A)
@1,304,775 (B)
How about this - the government should ONLY support people who are unable to work for good reasons, which includes:
- the elderly, esp. those who do not have families to look after them
- disabled people
It does not include:
- the poor by default (unless they fall into one of the above 2 categories)
- lazy people
- grifters
@1,304,775 (B)
How about this - the government should ONLY support people who are unable to work for good reasons, which includes:
- the elderly, esp. those who do not have families to look after them
- disabled people
It does not include:
- the poor by default (unless they fall into one of the above 2 categories)
- lazy people
- grifters
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,803
Anonymous H joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 43 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,821
@1,304,747 (B)
Actually most government money is spent on the military, while it's literally a couple percent of our budget for "welfare" thanks.
Actually most government money is spent on the military, while it's literally a couple percent of our budget for "welfare" thanks.
Anonymous I joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 7 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,824
@1,304,762 (C)
> If they're smart, it will be a small UBI: enough to not starve if you're homeless, but not enough for a free ride in life (still need to work).
They already solved UBI in the 90s, but it's never been implemented. The government puts $1M or whatever into an account for each citizen, at birth. Now you have a functional UBI for less than the even the administration costs of welfare programs
> If they're smart, it will be a small UBI: enough to not starve if you're homeless, but not enough for a free ride in life (still need to work).
They already solved UBI in the 90s, but it's never been implemented. The government puts $1M or whatever into an account for each citizen, at birth. Now you have a functional UBI for less than the even the administration costs of welfare programs
Anonymous G replied with this 1 year ago, 11 minutes later, 2 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,829
@previous (I)
At 5% saving rates, that's 50k per year. If they're 18 before they're allowed access to it that means everyone gets 900k when they're 18 to do whatever they like with, then government takes back the initial 1m and reinvests it for someone else. But somebody turning 18 this year will mean the 1m given to them is the same as giving 1.5m to someone today.
At 5% saving rates, that's 50k per year. If they're 18 before they're allowed access to it that means everyone gets 900k when they're 18 to do whatever they like with, then government takes back the initial 1m and reinvests it for someone else. But somebody turning 18 this year will mean the 1m given to them is the same as giving 1.5m to someone today.
Anonymous B replied with this 1 year ago, 46 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,836
Anonymous B double-posted this 1 year ago, 2 minutes later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,839
@1,304,821 (H)I can't find a chart that goes past 2016, but nothing has changed, military spending is dwarfed by welfare.
Anonymous B triple-posted this 1 year ago, 1 minute later, 3 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,841
@1,304,801 (F)
"The government" doesn't support anyone, it redistributes wealth.
Taxpayers should support those that need it, but we could cut most of the budget without touching disability benefits.
"The government" doesn't support anyone, it redistributes wealth.
Taxpayers should support those that need it, but we could cut most of the budget without touching disability benefits.
Anonymous I replied with this 1 year ago, 3 hours later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,914
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 1 year ago, 3 minutes later, 7 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,915
Fake anon !ZkUt8arUCU joined in and replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,933
@1,304,839 (B)
This is correct. The largest shares of expenses are (in order)
Social Security
Medicare
Other health expenditures
Military spending and interest payments usually fight for 4th and 5th place.
This is correct. The largest shares of expenses are (in order)
Social Security
Medicare
Other health expenditures
Military spending and interest payments usually fight for 4th and 5th place.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
boof replied with this 1 year ago, 1 hour later, 10 hours after the original post[^] [v] #1,304,943
to cut the entitlements would mean less revenue from the taxes that they are earmarked for. so you'd still be in the hole, unless you'd like to keep the paycheck deductions on for some retarded reason