You mean losers as in who got all their wealth confiscated? Unfortunately for you it'll never happen.
Because we didn't create our government to redistribute wealth DUH. When the government starts confiscating wealth, this will cease to be the U.S.A. Not to mention people that rich can simply move their assets to another country.....
Not if they are frozen first. And even if they did, we can get it back. I notice the IRS didn't have much trouble reeling in those offshore accounts. You can't walk out of America with more than a $1000. cash, can't take that home, business or farm, so.
Like we are really going to believe the right who are silent on this: Our Wars on Crime, Drugs, Poverty, and Terror, do just that.
Speaking in general- The left really doesn't understand what the right is talking about on this issue. I'm not sure the right understands the left completely either. But if there's anything that the right DOESN'T understand, it may be the the left actually thinks the right is evil. The right doesn't believe the left is evil. They believe they're stupid. (or 'ignorant', is probably the more exact word)
But whatever the reason for the increase in 2009, it does not change the fact that in the four years since 2009 spending has actually dropped, unprecedented in modern history, and completely the opposite of the massive spending increases we had under Bush and Reagan in comparable time periods. - - - Updated - - - Your interpretation is illogical as I demonstrated above.
besides those born with a mental issue or physical deficiency, we are all born with a brain and a fully capable body. What each individual does with it is on them and its nobodies responsibility to have to pay for your mistakes in life. Sink or swim, you are responsible for yourself.
Do you honestly think the poor have access to the same colleges the wealthy do? Do you think the poor have the same access to infrastructure as the wealthy? Even the most fiscally conservative proponents acknowledge they don't, suggesting otherwise is just inflammatory. So to answer your question, what progressives want is equal opportunity, so that just because someone is born into poverty their future is not hopeless.
No, he is not representative of mainstream progressivism. He sounds more like an economic egalitarian or maybe a socialist.
Yes, they have the same access DUH. WHAT imaginary barrier do you think is in place? You're not hopeless being born into poverty to begin with but let's set that aside for a moment. So.... you think we should forcefully confiscate from our citizens and hand to those we deem "less fortunate" so they're born with the same amount of dollars????????????? You ALREADY have equal access to everything I mentioned above..... The equalizer is that RICH people PAID for that infrastructure YOU USE on a daily basis. They PAID to keep those colleges open..... We have a PROGRESSIVE INCOME TAX SYSTEM IN PLACE. THAT'S THE EQUALIZER SO WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT??????????
Of course, why deal with the real issue? No, I don't, and in fact the vast majority of citizens willingly pay their tax share. The noisy indignant ones who complain about it are free to leave at their leisure. Sounds like a good plan. I want people like you to quit (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)ing about it.
WHAT is the REAL issue? 43% of Americans don't pay any federal income tax. I'm sure they're more than willing to watch others pay their "fair" share. That's good since it's already in place. I don't have a problem with it as long as it's used for GENERAL WELFARE instead of SPECIFIC WELFARE.
Exactly. Whereas Communism is perfect because no labor was ever exploited when Stalin was living high on the hog while slaughtering millions of working class labor type victims. Woops.
USSR was a state capitalist formation if it was communist there wouldn't be any USSR Show me any credible census showing Stalin "slaughtering millions" . Woops.
"Stalinism is a policy on how to develop a communist society, conceived and implemented by Joseph Stalin in the Soviet Union while officially adhering to Marxism–Leninism. Some criticize Stalinist practical measures, such as repression and economic policy, as a deviation from both Marxist and Leninist philosophy." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalinism "Were these people victims of Stalin or of Hitler? Or both?" http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/mar/10/hitler-vs-stalin-who-killed-more/?pagi If Stalin was such a capitalist maybe we should have voted him in over here. To control population growth by slaughter. There is a difference between being treated as equal under the law and being forced to be equal under the law. Capitalism is the best hope for the former while Communism is only obtainable by the latter. What would be the point of higher risks if not for the potential of higher gain? If Communism is truly a classless and moneyless society then why did it contain money and different classes? If you have ideas for improving rather than denigrating capitalism, I'm all for it but Communism, clearly, is not the way and Stalin, clearly, not a saint to be defended.
Apologies but i am kind of bored to answer the same questions +propaganda for any new member who have not research the subject. Let's just say that the Bolsheviks (i hope you know who they were) represented a small fraction of communists around the world. I am the last person to defend Stalin but so far there are not enough evidence about the number of the victims during the purges era and keep in mind that the "project" mostly targeted people with my (or close to my) ideas . Apologies to those who have seen it before but this is what Lenin wrote 70 years later it was proven that all that all this was a steamy pile of BS . *capitalism can not be fixed, sorry
"TDS: Peter Schiff Suggests the 'Mentally Retarded' Could be Paid $2 an Hour" http://crooksandliars.com/2014/01/tds-peter-schiff-suggests-mentally