If Trump is impeached

[resident_evil]

More of the right attacking Roberts using the very tropes I posited they would ... @Mick

Roberts never took a different position on Obamacare. As a Republican he probably opposed it, but he recognized it was not his place to impose his political preferences from the bench by arbitrarily striking down a duly passed, constitutionally compliant law.

The law wasn't constitutional. Compelling the purchase of a product has ZERO constitutional basis even when characterized as a tax. But individual freedom is not a trait a communer appreciates. Quite the opposite really.

 

[EatTheRich]

The law wasn't constitutional. Compelling the purchase of a product has ZERO constitutional basis even when characterized as a tax. But individual freedom is not a trait a communer appreciates. Quite the opposite really.

Taxes are specifically authorized by Article I.

 

[resident_evil]

Taxes are specifically authorized by Article I.

Not the point you have to deal with. Forcing the purchase of a commercial product is.

 

[EatTheRich]

Not the point you have to deal with. Forcing the purchase of a commercial product is.

Using tax money to subsidize private corporations is clearly allowed as per precedent. So basically, the legal rationale is that the government takes your money, subsidizes a corporation, and then requires that corporation (as a condition of getting the subsidy) to supply you with a service. No less legal than if they took your money and gave it to the same health insurance company but you didn’t get any health insurance out of the deal.

 

[resident_evil]

Using tax money to subsidize private corporations is clearly allowed as per precedent. So basically, the legal rationale is that the government takes your money, subsidizes a corporation, and then requires that corporation (as a condition of getting the subsidy) to supply you with a service. No less legal than if they took your money and gave it to the same health insurance company but you didn’t get any health insurance out of the deal.

Except that isn't true. Corporations get the kind of subsidies you're talking about in China and in some parts of Europe (less so these days). Not taxing someone is not a subsidy when they are keeping THEIR own money. Its when you give them someone else's money without having to pay it back that you are subsidizing someone.

 

[EatTheRich]

Except that isn't true. Corporations get the kind of subsidies you're talking about in China and in some parts of Europe (less so these days). Not taxing someone is not a subsidy when they are keeping THEIR own money. Its when you give them someone else's money without having to pay it back that you are subsidizing someone.

Which happens with corporations in the U.S. all the time.

 

[resident_evil]

Which happens with corporations in the U.S. all the time.

Do tell.

 

[EatTheRich]

Do tell.

1 example: 180 million acres worth of public land given to the railroads.
Another: the entire nuclear power industry built by the government at taxpayer expense and then given to private industry for free.

 

[resident_evil]

1 example: 180 million acres worth of public land given to the railroads.
Another: the entire nuclear power industry built by the government at taxpayer expense and then given to private industry for free.

Eminent domain requirements and public utility consideration are made for such Hoover Damn styled projects. Not much different than the right of way my city taxes cable companies to lay wire across/above my property. Got anything else. Because that really isn't anything. It would be like saying the same for oil and gas pipelines laid across the country.

 

[EatTheRich]

Eminent domain requirements and public utility consideration are made for such Hoover Damn styled projects. Not much different than the right of way my city taxes cable companies to lay wire across/above my property. Got anything else. Because that really isn't anything. It would be like saying the same for oil and gas pipelines laid across the country.

It is the same. Those companies’ ability to get rich depending on the state taking from the rest of us and giving to them.

 

[resident_evil]

It is the same. Those companies’ ability to get rich depending on the state taking from the rest of us and giving to them.

Your view of your place in society and that of businesses is skewed and unreal. You are Bernie Sanders lunatic crazy.

 

[EatTheRich]

Your view of your place in society and that of businesses is skewed and unreal. You are Bernie Sanders lunatic crazy.

You say, ignoring the sound argument I made that you are unable to refute.

 

[resident_evil]

You say, ignoring the sound argument I made that you are unable to refute.

What the hell are you talking about? Communism does not offer a sound argument. Theft is not an argument.

Unions could have always organized and bought shares in the company they were employed in ( 2/3 of capital expenditures for a corp is wages and benefits for the employees) and assumed the place of the owners without stealing from the rightful owners. I asked you that years ago and you wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because then unions would have to actually assume responsibility to keep the business running and bargain against themselves.

Communism is an economic fraud and on top of that Communism is no better than Nazism.

 

[Winston]

Except that isn't true. Corporations get the kind of subsidies you're talking about in China and in some parts of Europe (less so these days). Not taxing someone is not a subsidy when they are keeping THEIR own money. Its when you give them someone else's money without having to pay it back that you are subsidizing someone.

Corporations in China get free forced labor

 

[EatTheRich]

What the hell are you talking about? Communism does not offer a sound argument. Theft is not an argument.

Unions could have always organized and bought shares in the company they were employed in ( 2/3 of capital expenditures for a corp is wages and benefits for the employees) and assumed the place of the owners without stealing from the rightful owners. I asked you that years ago and you wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because then unions would have to actually assume responsibility to keep the business running and bargain against themselves.

Communism is an economic fraud and on top of that Communism is no better than Nazism.

1. The argument that without theft from the general public capitalist enterprise would have been impossible.
2. I did address your utopian fantasy, in multiple ways. First, capitalist profits depend on exploitation of workers, and for that it doesn’t matter who the capitalists are, particularly whether they are a group of unusually highly paid workers who can afford to buy a small business (itself being pushed out of the market by big-business competition) or not. Second, the ultimate destiny of unions is not to improve the immediate situation of their members only, but to liberate all of oppressed humanity.
3. Your minimization of the Nazis’ crimes by saying they are no worse than communists is indicative of the horrors you are willing to accept in the name of profit.

 

[EatTheRich]

What the hell are you talking about? Communism does not offer a sound argument. Theft is not an argument.

Unions could have always organized and bought shares in the company they were employed in ( 2/3 of capital expenditures for a corp is wages and benefits for the employees) and assumed the place of the owners without stealing from the rightful owners. I asked you that years ago and you wouldn't touch it with a 10 foot pole because then unions would have to actually assume responsibility to keep the business running and bargain against themselves.

Communism is an economic fraud and on top of that Communism is no better than Nazism.

1. The argument that without theft from the general public capitalist enterprise would have been impossible.
2. I did address your utopian fantasy, in multiple ways. First, capitalist profits depend on exploitation of workers, and for that it doesn’t matter who the capitalists are, particularly whether they are a group of unusually highly paid workers who can afford to buy a small business (itself being pushed out of the market by big-business competition) or not. Second, the ultimate destiny of unions is not to improve the immediate situation of their members only, but to liberate all of oppressed humanity.
3. Your minimization of the Nazis’ crimes by saying they are no worse than communists is indicative of the horrors you are willing to accept in the name of profit.

 

[resident_evil]

1. The argument that without theft from the general public capitalist enterprise would have been impossible.

Nobody is stealing shit from the "general public". From the very beginning your argument is farce..

2. I did address your utopian fantasy, in multiple ways. First, capitalist profits depend on exploitation of workers, and for that it doesn’t matter who the capitalists are, particularly whether they are a group of unusually highly paid workers who can afford to buy a small business (itself being pushed out of the market by big-business competition) or not. Second, the ultimate destiny of unions is not to improve the immediate situation of their members only, but to liberate all of oppressed humanity.

More farce. Delusional of reality farce.

3. Your minimization of the Nazis’ crimes by saying they are no worse than communists is indicative of the horrors you are willing to accept in the name of profit.

No, I don't say they are no worse. I say Communism is as bad as Nazism. Same brand of evil.

 

[EatTheRich]

Nobody is stealing shit from the "general public". From the very beginning your argument is farce..



More farce. Delusional of reality farce.



No, I don't say they are no worse. I say Communism is as bad as Nazism. Same brand of evil.

1. I pointed out specific examples of taxpayer money being used to create wealth without which private capitalists could never have succeeded.
2. Ok, show me where your plan has worked.
3. Communists are soldiers against capitalism. Nazis are soldiers in defense of capitalism. The failure of one means the success of the other.

 

[marvin martian]

1 example: 180 million acres worth of public land given to the railroads.
Another: the entire nuclear power industry built by the government at taxpayer expense and then given to private industry for free.

And yet you STILL advocate for a system where the government employees who made those terrible decisions are put in charge of EVERYTHING.

 

[resident_evil]

1. I pointed out specific examples of taxpayer money being used to create wealth without which private capitalists could never have succeeded.

You just said and gave no concrete examples. I gave the justification of public utilities and eminent domain issues that facilitate. What you could have used is public funding of stadiums. ha ha

2. Ok, show me where your plan has worked.

The proof is in the counter examples.

China had to become more capitalist to remain nominatively communist. Venezuela was more successful until Chavez showed up and pissed it all away. "Rich as an Argentine," until leftist policies deconstruct what well regulated capitalism built.

And of course the U.S. since before Lincoln. Just ask Alexis de Tocqueville.

3. Communists are soldiers against capitalism. Nazis are soldiers in defense of capitalism. The failure of one means the success of the other.

Communists and Nazis promised a welfare state for the workers, they both nationalized industries, and they both exerted command over the economy. Those are the elements of socialism of commune prerogatives over the individual's prerogative.

Communist leftist evil = Nazi leftist evil

The only economic success Communism (and Nazism for that matter) offers is to that of its elites. The workers fry and die for both brands of socialism.