It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

This is why I hate socialists

page: 6
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:29 PM
link   
a reply to: neo96


Sunsets in 2026.


Yeah, the individual cuts, after which they will expire and taxes will rise on the middle class, while corporate rates remain cut.


Tax breaks beer and wine.


Guess what, one of the Senator's sons is a beer lobbyist. Like I said, lobbyists had the most influence. It would be ironic if it wasn't so blatantly offensive.


That hardly constitutes robbery.


It's the very definition of, when you cut corporate rates, create deductions only the wealthy will use, but raise taxes on the middle class and eliminate their deductions, including student loan interest, teachers, etc. THAT is corporate robbery.

But believe what you want.
edit on 2-12-2017 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)




posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:33 PM
link   
a reply to: underwerks

It starts with making your personal being a business. Then any interests you expand on from there on out get filed as shell corporations.

People try to gain wealth by attaching their personal entity of a being to any investment they may make, and it's a mistake. People pay extra taxes because they work for it, but working for money can be switched to money working for them... business' don't get taxed at the rate citizens get after write off's.

Tell your friend loopholes are a better strategy, because the greedy and historical choices of these matters show that good people need to use their tactics to equal the playing field... your friend is an enterprise that means.

Reducing tax rates first starts with investing in one self, and not being in need of 40+ hours locked in a building each and every week to pay a higher tax rate.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:35 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6

I should rephrase that to I am defending Communism against left/right propaganda, but not advocating for it. but, I don't know if that makes more sense.

To be honest, 'anarchy' or, in this case, an 'anarchist society' is a uptopic vision, anarchy will never be fully achieved because not everyone will be an anarchist, there will always be those that build societies, and systems/platforms or attempt to dominate or rule over others, anarchy is more of a tension than an actual telos.

so, I don't have future visions because my focus is on the immediate and 'living anarchy' and taking an ax to the chains of domination... no one knows or is able to predict what would happen, or how it "will" work

maybe that sounds like a non-answer, but, my position is not to install platforms/systems etc, but the negation of them



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:39 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

Fair enough. Sounds like you've put a lot of thought (as in zero) into the end-game of "taking an ax to the chains of domination" which we all know has worked out wonderfully time and again.

To be clear, I'm mocking the answer itself, not you. I think the answer is a bit silly, but I respect you for giving an honest answer to the question.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: XAnarchistX

(content removed)

Pick any platform of government wished for, let it go unchecked by the citizens long enough, and tyranny takes hold... this includes democracy.

To me, because capitalism shows to be a quick rise to power (the U.S. being the quickest to dominate in history), but is not capable of escaping the seeded tyranny aspects, we just need new players.

There's no need to cause bloodshed over it or anything, but forcing all government officials to step aside as we vote in new unconnected members of tyranny is a solid platform to push towards. Maybe current politicians just need to have an 8 year hiatus before entering back into campaigns under a system of a no political party platform?

I feel you're spot on... but we just need to remove the tyranny of the players. The system wouldn't have escalated the U.S. to world super power status so quickly had the base platform not been a foundation to lean on.

Thomas Jefferson said it himself, something to the degree of "let any for of government go unchecked and tyranny will set in", and "a revolt every 10-20 years is a healthy act... to thwart the spread of tyranny." We're just 150 years past the 20 year call for a revolt is all! Great job voters!
edit on 2-12-2017 by ttobban because: content removed



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:12 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

Taking away the Gubaments Money? What is Trump thinking!


edit on 2-12-2017 by pavil because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: Subaeruginosa

I think it was socialism bailing out the "too big to fail" banks. Corporate Socialism.

Larceny actually.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Nikola014
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Apparently, you don't.

Socialism, in its original form, is a temporary step towards achieving its mission, which is communism. It is not a social construct, as it was not socially constructed. It's an ideology.

Don't throw around terms you're not familiar with. It just makes you sound funny


Okay. Here you go.


Social constructionism is a general term sometimes applied to theories that emphasize the socially created nature of social life. Of course, in one sense all sociologists would argue this, so the term can easily become devoid of meaning. More specifically, however, the emphasis on social constructionism is usually traced back at least to the work of William Isaac Thomas and the Chicago sociologists, as well as the phenomenological sociologists and philosophers such as Alfred Schutz. Such approaches emphasize the idea that society is actively and creatively produced by human beings. They portray the world as made or invented—rather than merely given or taken for granted. Social worlds are interpretive nets woven by individuals and groups.

www.oxfordreference.com...

You might like this one better:


noun Social Construct


a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice


That's from a plain ole dictionary. Get one.

To further clarify. A government has the idea to give all it's citizens health care, equally. They put together a delivery system which does that, and that delivery system is given a name, put into action, and thusly becomes the 'social construct'.

As far as Karl Marx, I've read his work. You might find this synopsis of his thinking educational. It was actually quite magnificent and brilliant in many ways, but it became bastardized over time.

www.thoughtco.com...




edit on 12/2/2017 by ladyinwaiting because: added example



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:44 PM
link   
You had better get use to it. After the republicans and rich take everything and kill the middle class, we will go full socialism.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
You had better get use to it. After the republicans and rich take everything and kill the middle class, we will go full socialism.


Oh brother! (~sigh) I just wish I could wave a magic wand and all the socialists, marxists, anarchists, and communists would be in the middle of a far-away island somewhere searching for their utopia, and leave the rest of us alone.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: MOMof3
You had better get use to it. After the republicans and rich take everything and kill the middle class, we will go INTO FULL OUT CIVIL WAR


Precisely. And that is EXACTLY what Karl Marx wanted to prevent. I amended your comment a little.
Forgive me just this once?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Then my question is a simple one.

Do you believe in it? If you do, do you believe you have the right to take what I earn as you need it?


I believe it has an up side.


If you do, do you believe you have the right to take what I earn as you need


No.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:55 PM
link   

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: underwerks

Yes.

Our taxes went down during the Bush years. During those 8 years, our family thrived...


Sounds like you've got a bad case of selective memory.

Didn't the US suffer the worst economical crisis of modern times in 2008? Or am I mistaken?



You mean the housing bubble, where government entities were directed by liberals to give mortgages to people that could never have paid them?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 05:56 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

Why? I’m not a bad person. Never went to jail, never dodged paying taxes, worked for 38 years, raised three good kids, volunteer charity work, take care of a disabled husband. How do I harm your life?



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
a reply to: MOMof3

Anybody that says this:


After the republicans and rich take everything and kill the middle class, we will go full socialism.


is doing harm.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:00 PM
link   
double post??


edit on 2-12-2017 by queenofswords because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:05 PM
link   
a reply to: queenofswords

I didn’t call for harm or banishment against the Russians and traitors. I just said we will go full socialism.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Civil war is what the far right wants. Destroying the middle class is one way to get it. When those rural dwellers that put trump and republicans in power figure it out, they’ll be living in the cities with other welfare recipients.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:09 PM
link   
I love threads like this.

The way people conflate liberalism, Marxism, socialism and communism is hilarious.

No wonder you folk are permanently angry....you don't know what you hate.



posted on Dec, 2 2017 @ 06:10 PM
link   

originally posted by: Wardaddy454


You mean the housing bubble, where government entities were directed by liberals to give mortgages to people that could never have paid them?




The corporate interests behind Wall Street (and Trump) always do what liberals tell them to do. No. Seriously.



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join