commies

[right]

I for one doubt that your little report is even real at all. But no ,no one goes hungry here .However you touched on a very important issue. The 8 billion in food stamps a year that you are allegedly posting is something that the worker has to pay for the bum on the couch who just doesn't want to work.
Americans are the fattest and most privileged people on earth. They have no clue how good they have it.
The working man ( the proletariat) paying for the lazy is a slippery slope to communism.

 

[right]

Let me mention a lyric from a popular American song about every day American life.
"So if you're five foot three and your three hundred pounds then taxes ought not pay for your bags of fudge rounds. Lord it's a damn shame"

 

[Eltitoguay]

Your weird little report isn't taking about huge its talking about food security.
(...)
No one starves in America. What you are saying is silly .

Remember that the article only reflects US government data (or was it North Korean propaganda, according to you...)

I thought your imbecility couldn't go any further... "Severe food insecurity" is synonymous with "nutritional insufficiency, malnutrition and living with feelings of hunger" everywhere and in all statistics.

NO GOVERNMENT PUTS "HUNGER" IN THEIR STATISTICS, THERE ARE SO MANY EUPHEUNISMS THAT DON'T SOUND SO HORRIBLE.

And another thing is to die directly from hunger, rather than from its consequences and erosion of general health.

You were told just a few messages ago, you idiot, (but since you don't even read the articles that you yourself link, you keep declaring yourself to be a universal idiot) that during the worst of the Special Period of the Castro dictatorship, there were a lot of hunger : many more people in "Food Insecurity Situation" and "Severe Food Insecurity" estadistics, than in the USA (in population proportion, of course)... but there were no deaths from hunger either.

 

[right]

I don't care where you produced or dug up your little article. I have lived in america for years. You are wrong.
You shouldn't call people idiots when you can't compose a sentence most of the time.
I've been to nice too mention that.

 

[right]

I don't know how you can continue to be confused, but I am American. I know plenty of tent city bums from the hobo jungles .
They have food dope cell phones and more.
If it's raining and you put your head out of the window and you see rain. It's raining, no matter what they tell you.
So you might need to find some more accurate information.
What you are saying is stupid.

 

[Eltitoguay]

state ownership isn't socialism

Of industry ,private property redistribution,pricing etc.

If you want the government to control means of production and distribution then socialism is favored

which still isn't correct

I think Cannavore is partly right about this: A capitalist country can become to autarky.

For example, the Franco dictatorship (anti-communist to the core, and capitalist), during a phase of international isolation, tried to survive by attempting autarky: the Franco State was forced to create state companies that covered everything that did not come from private initiative. , creating in practice state monopolies (that set prices) in energy, communications, public works, defense...
But if society, the population, is alien to these processes, and its work and the surplus value generated with it, continues to be managed by the State just as with the private capitalist company...little socialism (neither utopian, nor scientific, nor libertarian) there is there: that I believe is STATE CAPITALISM

 

[Eltitoguay]

I think maybe it depends on which country you live in, I'm in Canada and the government or federal crown commision owns a lot of services.Airlines,electrical utilities,atomic energy,lcbo,gambling and gaming,municipal financing,fisheries,mortgage and housing corporation,business development bank,via rail. There are 44 crown owned major services here and the average tax rate is 52%.

But the social aspect of a State is not only how much the average tax rate is: it is also knowing how much each person contributes in proportion to their income (because if a worker with a payroll pays 40% and a rich businessman, 5%. ..), and, above all, how much and how it is distributed:

Public social transfers as a share of gross domestic product

Source" Commitment to Equity Institute" (2015)

 

[Dime]

"A capitalist country can become to autarky." the west used to be just that. Limited trade and self sufficiency,it still could be if people shopped domestically but it limits competition and has it's own cons like monopolies.

 

[Dime]

But the social aspect of a State is not only how much the average tax rate is: it is also knowing how much each person contributes in proportion to their income (because if a worker with a payroll pays 40% and a rich businessman, 5%. ..), and, above all, how much and how it is distributed:

Public social transfers as a share of gross domestic product
View attachment 19075732
Source" Commitment to Equity Institute" (2015)

I think a flat tax is fair. Punishing success through taxing causes inflation to recoup and the cost is passed on to the consumer anyway.

 

[Eltitoguay]

What's your take on the definition of socialism?

it's not really "my" take... it's libertarian socialism, the dominant strain of socialism in the west. it's not soviet state ownership.

Libertarian socialism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

...Which even so, is a very broad definition... (Of those from "the most Marxist branches" or the "most anarchist"?)
Socialism is in general concept, and in variants, like Christianity: a Catholic, an Orthodox and a Protestant, will not say the same thing... And the Catholics themselves, depending on whether they belong to Opus Dei or the Liberation Theory... .

 

[right]

The Evil empire !

 

[right]

Again do you care to coment on Gorbachev getting pimped by American Capitalist pizza hut?
This video is hilarious
It seems the Communists sold their souls for a McDonald's happy meal.hahahahahaha

 

[right]

Communism is repeating the same mistakes over and over again and expecting different results.
We study history so that we can learn from our mistakes and not ever repeat them

 

[right]

Hahahaha

 

[Eltitoguay]

I think a flat tax is fair.Punishing success through taxing causes inflation to recoup and the cost is passed on to the consumer anyway.

Do you mean that we all pay the same percentage, regardless of our salary?
If so, I see that as tremendously unfair (of course, less than the fact that salaried workers pay 40%, and the millionaire businessman and/or their corporations pays only 5%, by art and magic of "tax engineering"; things like this are happening in several countries, rich and poor, with Western capitalist economies)

 

[Eltitoguay]

"A capitalist country can become to autarky." the west used to be just that. Limited trade and self sufficiency,it still could be if people shopped domestically but it limits competition and has it's own cons like monopolies.

Be careful that autarky chosen because you can afford it is not the same as forced autarky (as during their respective moments in Francoist capitalist Spain or in Castroist socialist Cuba).

Furthermore, since the industrial revolution, I see it as very difficult for capitalist utarchy to have to face other foreign economies with more free international markets.
This was already discussed in communism and its economic model: one-country socialism vs. internationalist socialism, Stalin vs. Trosky. And I believe history agrees with Trosky: If world capitalism declares economic war on a country with an isolated socialist economy, either it has a "large living space" of its own where it can obtain resources, or a international capitalism attack will manage to undermine its economy and development.
Note that Stalin's USSR had a "very wide living space", but even so, it was much more limited than that of international capitalism. And when, with its economic-military war, the USA made the USSR have to dedicate more than 20% of its wealth to its own military program (I don't remember the exact number), the USSR finally collapsed.

 

[right]

Nothing could be further from the truth. Billionaires actually pay the lions share of all taxes
COMMENTARY Taxes
How Much Federal Income Tax Do the Rich Pay?
Jun 26, 2024 5 min read
COMMENTARY BY
Preston Brashers
Research Fellow, Tax Policy

Preston is a Research Fellow for tax policy in The Heritage Foundation’s Grover M. Hermann Center for the Federal Budget.

President Joe Biden talks to health care advocates April 3 in the Eisenhower Executive Office Building.
Chip Somodevilla / Staff / Getty Images
Copied
Politicians on the Left portray the rich in America as a bunch of freeloaders who don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

These politicians suggest that many of society’s problems could be solved if only the rich would be less greedy and hand over more of their money to the government to spend.

There are three problems with this argument.

First, many of society’s problems are caused by the government spending too much—inflation is a prime example.

Second, the argument ignores the greed of the politicians who want to spend other people’s money.

Third—and this is the crux of the matter—the rich already pay a disproportionate share of federal taxes.

Here are the numbers, according to the government forecasters at the Joint Committee on Taxation.

In 2024, about 1 out of 180 American taxpayers will make $1 million or more of total income, based on a broad definition of income used by the forecasters.

Altogether, these million-dollar earners will earn about 15% of the nation’s income next year. But they will pay 39% of all federal income taxes.

The million-dollar earners will pay an average federal income tax rate that is 3.5 times higher than the other 99.4% of Americans.


Politicians also peddle the claim that millionaires and billionaires pay a lower tax rate than schoolteachers, nurses, firefighters, sanitation workers, or whatever group they’re pandering to on that particular day.

President Joe Biden has even suggested that millionaires pay not only a lower rate, but “less in taxes” than these other Americans.

That couldn’t be further from the truth.

Based on the government forecasters’ estimates, those earning a million dollars or more in 2024 will pay an average of about $776,800 in federal income taxes, about 475 times as much as the average American taking home between $50,000 and $100,000.

As a percentage of income, it’s somewhat more even. But still, for every dollar of income, the millionaire category will fork over more than 10 times as much in federal income taxes as their middle-income compatriots.

However you look at it, the rich directly pay a huge share of federal income taxes.


But for politicians who routinely propose trillion-dollar increases in federal spending, the higher priority seems to be convincing voters that somebody else can and should pay for their spending sprees. After all, if every household paid an equal share of taxes, each household would be on the hook for more than $7,500 in additional taxes for each trillion dollars of new federal spending.

The “pay your fair share” malarkey is a diversion meant to distract Americans from seeing just how big of a share the federal government is taking out of the economy.

America’s economic malaise isn’t a consequence of the rich being allowed to keep too much of the money they earn, it’s a consequence of the federal government draining massive amounts of resources out of the private economy by spending about $7 trillion a year—more than $50,000 per American household.

America’s economic troubles are multiplied by the federal government’s regulating businesses to death and by the Federal Reserve’s inflating away the purchasing power of each dollar by printing more and more money to buy up federal debt.

The inflation that comes with a bloated federal government is a hidden tax that hits all Americans, but that doesn’t show up in tax distribution charts.

And that brings us to another Biden claim: that those making less than $400,000 won’t pay a penny more in federal taxes under his policies.

In fact, Biden has implemented and proposed numerous tax increases that would directly hit middle-income Americans. But none of them has hit as hard as the hidden and indirect tax known as inflation that followed Biden’s runaway spending.

And this is a critical point. Tax distribution charts show that the rich pay a disproportionate amount of federal taxes, but they don’t show how much of the economic fallout of excess taxes and spending ultimately lands on the middle class.

When excess federal spending and taxes drive up businesses’ costs and force business owners to raise their prices, nurses and schoolteachers must pay more for their groceries, rent, and gas.

When high taxes lead a manufacturer to eliminate bonuses, cut benefits, or move jobs overseas, workers pay the price.

When high taxes discourage entrepreneurship and stifle innovation, firefighters, sanitation workers, and everyone else who would have benefited from better, more affordable products suffer.

These downstream effects on the middle class don’t show up in tax distribution charts, but they’re no less real than the taxes that come out of Americans’ paychecks.

If the solution to what ails the middle class was more government and high taxes on high-income Americans, then Americans would be sitting pretty right now.

But if that’s not working for everyday Americans—and there’s every indication that it’s not—maybe it’s time to make the federal government tighten its belt for a change.

This piece is a part of The Heritage Foundation’s Wealth and Innovation project which stands to defend and promote the freedom to innovate, create and use wealth. These are essential to the delicate process by which innovators and entrepreneurs work to build a prosperous and purposeful society.

This piece originally appeared in The Daily Signal

 

[Eltitoguay]

In fact, economies in forced autarky are wishing to be able to get out of it, and this forces them to try to overcome this autarky by trading with other forced autarchies ("trade between outcasts")...: I believe that the turn to Soviet post-Stalinism The Cuban Revolution was largely the fault and unintended consequence of the economic war led by the USA.

But as I said, forced autarky also forces us to make "strange bedfellows" between supposedly totally antagonistic regimes; This occurred during the final death throes of the last phase of Franco's capitalist autarky (when international sanctions disappeared to fully incorporate Francoism into the world free market; but this was still not enough for the poor Francoist economy) , when the Franco dictatorship was forced to annoy and anger its main ally the USA (which was also the government that was making the capitalist world lift its economic sanctions on the bloody dictatorship), with a small fleet of merchant ships that managed to circumvent the military blockade US naval service to Cuba, to be able to trade with the Castro regime...

See if Franco's capitalist economy must have been desperate, which was putting at risk all the good things that Francoism was beginning to enjoy thanks to the American decision to integrate the Spanish dictatorship into the "Western free world", and when Spain was already the most fervent ally from the USA in Europe; so much so that the USA granted Franco the unofficial title of being its "sentinel in Southwestern Europe and Northwestern Africa"... Which Franco did take as part of the bombastic official title that accompanied his name on the emblems: "Franco: Caudillo of Spain by The Glory Of God (and this included Allah in Spanish-Franco Muslim Africa) and Sentinel of the West"...

This strange military alliance between a capitalist dictatorship and an increasingly dictatorial socialist revolution continued until the USA managed to sink the first Spanish cargo ship.

Sierra Aránzazu - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

es.wikipedia.org

About this curious episode in the history of Cuba-Spain-USA, I will post an illustrative article later.

 

[right]

Tax the employers of workers, who are struggling to employ workers?Brilliant

 

[right]

In fact, economies in forced autarky are wishing to be able to get out of it, and this forces them to try to overcome this autarky by trading with other forced autarchies ("trade between outcasts")...: I believe that the turn to Soviet post-Stalinism The Cuban Revolution was largely the fault and unintended consequence of the economic war led by the USA.

But as I said, forced autarky also forces us to make "strange bedfellows" between supposedly totally antagonistic regimes; This occurred during the final death throes of the last phase of Franco's capitalist autarky (when international sanctions disappeared to fully incorporate Francoism into the world free market; but this was still not enough for the poor Francoist economy) , when the Franco dictatorship was forced to annoy and anger its main ally the USA (which was also the government that was making the capitalist world lift its economic sanctions on the bloody dictatorship), with a small fleet of merchant ships that managed to circumvent the military blockade US naval service to Cuba, to be able to trade with the Castro regime...

See if Franco's capitalist economy must have been desperate, which was putting at risk all the good things that Francoism was beginning to enjoy thanks to the American decision to integrate the Spanish dictatorship into the "Western free world", and when Spain was already the most fervent ally from the USA in Europe; so much so that the USA granted Franco the unofficial title of being its "sentinel in Southwestern Europe and Northwestern Africa"... Which Franco did take as part of the bombastic official title that accompanied his name on the emblems: "Franco: Caudillo of Spain by The Glory Of God (and this included Allah in Spanish-Franco Muslim Africa) and Sentinel of the West"...

This strange military alliance between a capitalist dictatorship and an increasingly dictatorial socialist revolution continued until the USA managed to sink the first Spanish cargo ship.

Sierra Aránzazu - Wikipedia, la enciclopedia libre

es.wikipedia.org

About this curious episode in the history of Cuba-Spain-USA, I will post an illustrative article later.

Fact check. None of this is true