AOC is socialist. Is that bad?

if you are wealthy you are already doing that by selling great products and providing great jobs. Now that's sustainability that does not cripple like liberal welfare programs do. Do you understand?

 

please stop with the moral bigotry that has already killed 120 million. conservatives are capitalists. Capitalism just eliminated 40% of the entire planets poverty. How is that for concern, concern for the 120 million that libsocialism killed???

you're argument is: I'm morally superior because I support crippling welfare.

 

Apparently, you are under the delusion that welfare is free handouts for lazy people forever. It isn't. Welfare has time limits, and many restrictions, and is designed to help the needy temporarily until they can get on their financial feet again. I am aghast at conservative's reluctance to help those in need.

 

Capitalism made it possible for <2% of Americans to own & control >98% of all the wealth in this nation. That's NO RECORD to be PROUD of.

 

Capitalism has made it possible to argue on the internet. In a house with lights on at night. Instead of working to not starve.

 

Many Americans work to not starve. Too many. We need to care about that. And American capitalism is NOT a success story as long as any Americans have to live that way.

 

It's possible to buy a 50 pound bag of rice and a 50 pound bag of pinto beans for $60 and $70 respectively. One pound of rice has 11 servings. So 50 pounds of rice has 550 servings of rice. Nobody in America needs to starve, no matter how little money they earn.

 

Some of those now homeless may be starving. Many poor old people have to choose between food & medicine. What kind of life is that? Since no other organization has solved this problem for us, then perhaps government should.

 

Like I said. One hundred pounds of beans and rice for $130. That's fifty days worth of nutrition. That comes out to $2.60 per day. I don't think that $2.60 per day is going to mean that someone can't afford health care.

 

This fallacious gibberish has already been refuted. Just because Red introduced bills to stop cap the debt 200 years ago - or 20 years ago in one congress that actually had some fiscal responsibility - does not change reality. The fact of the matter is that since (and including Reagan) every Red Administration has spent money like princesses with credit cards - running massive deficits.

Then you contradict yourself and claim that 100% of the energy for fiscal responsibility has been blue .. which is as 100% false as you claiming the Red has shown fiscal responsibility. Both sides love big deficits and big Gov't spending. The only time these clowns have controlled spending is when they have been forced to via external factors... not because they wanted to ... such as during Clinton's term.

Trump's budget is cruel - it is cruelty to our children and grandchildren who are the ones who will get stuck with the bill and pay the price for this reckless and wasteful spending. This is not why the Dems are calling it cruel - but this is the reality.

 

If that $2.60 per day were their only living costs, I'd agree, but they're not. You can't make your points valid with such a limited response. Sorry.

 

the point is that employment is at the will of either party not "wage slavery". the right wing proves they don't understand the equal rights concept or don't care.

 

"Military-Industrial Complex is an unofficial phrase used to signify the "comfortable" relationship that can develop between government entities (namely defense) and defense-minded manufacturers/organizations. This union can produce obvious benefits for both sides - warplanners receiving the tools necessary for waging war (while also furthering political interests abroad) while defense companies become the recipients of lucrative multi-million or multi-billion dollar deals."

 

Too bad that Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere went belly up.

 

America recreated Japan in our image after WW2 because its people were deadly robots who would slaughter at the drop of a hat and they still have no principles. They are hardly great in any sense. Only America fired the shot heard around the world and only America maintains civilization on earth!!

 

only because there is not enough support to do otherwise. 1+1=2

 

only to Democrats for whom there is never enough spending! Do you understand?

 

Obviously 100% of the energy for fiscal responsibility is in Republican Party! 1+1=2 As sson as there is enough support for BBA we will have one. Is this still over your head gifted one??

 

is a crappy life so we must should make liberalism illegal because it creates so much poverty. Ever wonder why people were so poor 120 million slowly starved to death under libcommunism? Ever hear of Venezuela/Cuba?

 

it is the party of fiscal conservatism, but cant impose it because there is not enough support for it in our democracy. Is this really over your head? Did you know we live in a democracy?

 

Yes liberals are morally superior because they care! Or, they are bigots who imagine they are superior to others when in reality they sow destruction, poverty and death where ever they appear. Odd how conservatives give more to charity than liberals isn't it?

 

I never said I, or liberals, were "superior." I don't think that way. The fact that you said it would indicate you DO think that way. Most conservatives see the world in terms of superior & inferior, black & white, etc. I don't want to. I feel all of us are valuable as human beings & as conscious beings, and all of us have the potential to become better than we are at present. I also know & respect the fact that as living beings, we all change over time, and everyone should be given the chance to mature in their own personal way.

As with most conservatives, you measure the level of "giving" & "charity" thru levels of money. But helping others isn't always with money. It can be helping with taking time to listen, offering guidance or helpful advice, or spending shared time with someone lonely, or helping someone without transportation get to the market, or the doctor, or a thousand other neighborly things that money doesn't play a part in. Can you actually back up your claim that conservatives give more to charity than liberals? Based on the unkind, judgmental commentary I see posted on this forum by conservatives, most of them regard anyone in need as either stupid, lazy, crooked, or all of those combined. I don't sense much "charity" in their hearts.

 

Red may claim to be the party of fiscal responsibility but, Red Establishment is not. We had a Red President, with both houses red, and what did they do with all this power - massive deficit increases - that's what they did.

What is also true, is that the majority of the increase in the deficit spend was Red pet programs such as the massive increase to military spending.

Twirling around crying "Its all Blue, Its all Blue - Blue is 100% responsible" is not an argument for anything other than your inability to make a valid argument. This claim is completely false - and you ingesting too much Red koolaid will not change this fact.

 

In which case there should never be more than a tiny percentage of people drawing welfare. And no one would draw welfare for more than a few months. Is that actually what's happening? I suspect not.

I'm aghast at Progressives enabling a grotesque level of opportunistic welfare 'theft' (by lazy people), while the genuinely needy are ignored. It's an easy show of 'compassion', and they don't have to get their hands dirty with the work of real help. Most conservatives I know would end opportunistic theft of welfare for able bodied people, reduce the overall welfare budget (since nowhere near as much is actually needed - and they want folk to learn to fish, not be given fish), and redirect the remains to those genuinely in need. Conservatives seem to be prepared to do the work of real help.

 

You completely ignored the rice and beans thing.