romney committed a federal felony?

Originally Posted by noxiously

The lowest ranked countries on that list are all African countries. Are they a socialist country....far from it.

Sure, everything has a good side and a bad side. Not saying socialism is all good, because it isn't. In that sense, being strictly capitalism isn't all good either. I'll even go as far to admit that in a perfect world, Reagans trickle down effect would actually be a better system, but in reality, the trickle down never takes effect. You lower the taxes on the wealthiest, that way they have even more money to spend, they spend that money by building new companies, expanding the ones that already exist, and that in turn results in more people having jobs, which puts more money in peoples pockets, which results in more money flowing into the economy and that stimulates growth all the way around. Sounds awesome to me, I would actually like to have that system, even though I am a Dem. but like I said, in reality it doesn't work because these corporate assholes never let that money trickle down, the furthest it gets is into their own pockets.

Capitalism breeds greed, socialism atleast gives the poor a fighting chance. If it wasn't for atleast a little bit of socialism there would never be a middle class. People in the lower class category would never be able to build themselves up to be atleast middle class. Stop being such greedy bastards and let someone else try to do something good with their lives. I went to college, with the help of student loans cause making $9.50 an hr was too much for me to get a grant, and now I have a half way decent paying job, and I pay more in taxes than people who make less than me. Oh well, I don't care because I can afford it, and if I can help some little kid eat then I'll pay higher taxes every year if I had too because I make enough for myself (not greedy). Sure there are alot of people who take advantage of the system, they don't work, get food stamps, title 20, pipp plans, etc. all on the working stiffs dime, but you know what, they sure as hell aren't living a rich life. They live welfare check to welfare check, don't have crap to claim as their own, their children don't get good meals, they don't get to wear nice clothes. I grew up in the ghetto and still live in the ghetto and have seen how it works first hand, no one is getting rich off of anyone elses taxes except these huge corporations that get huge tax breaks because capitalism is the only one right way to do things.

man, id everybody in this thread flogging nonsense they dont understand?

capitalism is not evil, socialism is not good, all taxes are not socialism, all profit is not theft, individual failure is not the fault of either the federal governemnt or a coroporate conspiracy (unless there actually is govt or corporate malfeasance, in which case, take it to the courts). all social programs are not an example of apostate marxist wickedness, or angelic marxist purity of purpose.

heres some information that might help you figure out why both you and sistermaryelephant are wrong as wrong can get.



Marxism: detailing and dealing with the (harebrained) philosophies of Karl Marx, a pampered bouregois German political philosopher, and Beard Aficionado from the late 19th century. his wcky idead have failed every time they are tried, and only take root in the fertile ignorance of dimwitted peasant mobs or dopey college kids looking for a new cause to embrace after they finish their first Poli Sci lecture.

Communism: a fantasyland where all the pretty ponies share everything. there is no currency, markets, personal property, government, or authority. everyone shares and shares alike, it's not Your apple, it's THE apple. any-pony who wants to take a bite may simply do so, and no-pony objects, because apparently in equestria apples grow free and wild, requiring no effort or maintenence, provide their bounty all year long, require no storage or any other measures to prepare for winter. Every-pony works, every-pony pays, every-pony shares, every-pony benefits. how? no-pony can say. Protip: read the ant and the grasshopper kids.

http://www.dltk-teach.com/fables/grasshopper/mstory.htm

Socialism: A middle ground designed to facilitate the "re-education" of the foolish workers who think they own the sweat of their brow into the wisdom of communist marxist thought. a little bit of propaganda and a lot of force over many years will eventually demonstrate the rightness of marxist communist ideology. once everybody understands the genius of marx, the politburo will release their control, disband their forces, throw open the doors to their dachas, and embrace their simple new life as peasant farmers just like everyone else. if you believe that youre not paying attention.


Capitalism: you own yourself, you own your sweat, you own the fruits of your labour, and anyone who wants a piece of your action must trade you something of value with your consent for your efforts. lack of perfection, and fairness does not invalidate the idea, the long track record of success demonstrated by capitalism through the ages (republican rome to the USA) speaks for itself. where there is more capitalism, there is more success,, up to a point, where the greedy acquisitive nature of certain persons results in their embracing variously slavery, violence, extortion, and fraud to enrich themselves. as long as the depraved urges of the lowest common denominator are kept in check by regulations designed to prevent fraud, theft, or violence, capitalism builds great societies. (not to be confused with The Great Society)

Anarchism: uncontrolled unrestrained freedom from all concerns save one's own base desires. the guy with the gun makes the rules, the next guy with a gun makes new rules, the next guys makes new ones too, until you get a gun, you have to follow these rules or get shot in the face. it's the communist utopia revealed as the Fruitopia it would ultimately become. see Fallout 3 and Mad Max for more details.

Society: mutual sharing to promote the common good. if you dont want to pay any taxes, go live in ted kaczynski's cabin and write your manifesto in your own feces, and spare us all your mischief.

Originally Posted by noxiously

Your chart is an Obama proposed budget knuckle head.

You conveniently left out the heading above the graph, so I'll fix that for you.

''President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 includes billions to put people back to work and imposes new fees on some of the nation's largest banks."

Here, you can use these figures of actual federal spending and add the percentages up!

I came up with a total of 20% in defense spending and 54% on SS, medicare/medicaid and other federal social programs. Nice try!

BTW, go ahead with your attempt to attack my source, and rots a ruck.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Defense and international security assistance: In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $731 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,229 per month to 35.6 million retired workers in December 2011.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) - together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2011, or $769 billion.

Safety net programs: About 13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

Originally Posted by noxiously

HA, we all know who couldn't pass basic math. The numbers don't lie, it's the people who misinterpret those numbers. I can show you true numbers as to how the unemployment rate has been declining every since Obama took office, sure it's still higher than years past, thanks to who of course, the right wingers and their Messiah Bush. But atleast Obama put things into play that helped people get back to work. All of the experts were saying it would take atleast 10 years for America to get back on track, Obama can't do it in 4, he can set the pavers but it won't happen, even if he gets a second term, we still won't be back to the good days of a balanced budget, lowest unemployment rates, lowest poverty levels, since who of course....Clinton. I know how much you simple minded, one idea, right wingers hate to hear Clintons name, the only reason is because you can't deny how great of a job he did, not congress, but Clinton himself.


Clinton Clinton Clinton.....I think I just made a republican cry.

You do realize I gave no opinion about anything other than numbers can lie, right?

Way to make up my opinions for me, bucko.

Numbers can lie.

Originally Posted by Antidisestablishmentarian

FYI, numbers CAN lie.

Example: unemployment rate.

actually numbers don't lie...people do

Originally Posted by SisterMaryElephant

C'mon doc, where are those modern successful socialist utopian societies? Still up in oregon near the border? In the White House? Are you going to be sad or mad when obamacare is repealed next year?

actually they are COMMUNES, voluntary associations. their success is determined by their continuance despite the members being able to walk away any time they like, yet many stay. if a hippie is unhappy in one commune he can join another or go square any time he wants. THEY get to decide if they are happy, you dont get to make that call for them.

if you want an example of a communal association which is successful in every measurable way, look up Blue Diamond Growers co-op.

if all taxes that fund programs you dont know if you benefit from are socialist, then we should all flee to cuba and north korea. you never walked on the moon, so Nasa is a socialist boondoggle. you werent even born during WW2, so the fight against the nazis was a socialist war of aggression. your house aint never flooded so levees and storm drains is socialist claptrap! you aint never had no poison water so your municipal water supply must be a communist conspiracy.

stop throwing bricks through your own windows, youre not a very successful troll. You are more like a 1/2 hit die goblin. i dont need your 1d4+1 coppers and tattered loincloth.

Originally Posted by beenthere

Your chart is an Obama proposed budget knuckle head.

You conveniently left out the heading above the graph, so I'll fix that for you.

''President Obama's $3.8 trillion budget proposal for fiscal year 2011 includes billions to put people back to work and imposes new fees on some of the nation's largest banks."

Here, you can use these figures of actual federal spending and add the percentages up!

I came up with a total of 20% in defense spending and 54% on SS, medicare/medicaid and other federal social programs. Nice try!

BTW, go ahead with your attempt to attack my source, and rots a ruck.
http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1258

Defense and international security assistance: In 2011, 20 percent of the budget, or $718 billion, paid for defense and security-related international activities.

Social Security: Another 20 percent of the budget, or $731 billion, paid for Social Security, which provided retirement benefits averaging $1,229 per month to 35.6 million retired workers in December 2011.

Medicare, Medicaid, and CHIP: Three health insurance programs - Medicare, Medicaid, and the Children's Health Insurance Program (CHIP) - together accounted for 21 percent of the budget in 2011, or $769 billion.

Safety net programs: About 13 percent of the federal budget in 2011, or $466 billion, went to support programs that provide aid (other than health insurance or Social Security benefits) to individuals and families facing hardship.

first of all bro, social security medicare and medicaid as well as disability insurance etc are separate from general fund spending. they are financed by their own dedicated taxes (all excess is then looted for general spending, but the funds are separate as is the spending) including social securit (by your own numbers it's adding to the revenue stream, not reducing it $935 mil incoming, and only $731 outgoing) jamming together unrelated subjects to alter the numbers is disingenuous.


spending should be categorized in a reasonable way, or not lumped together at all.

your source is quite suspect. their data source is the estimates for 2011 from OMB, and "historical" data from 2013?????? with no budget, and only continuing resolutions both sides get to play fast and loose with projections estimates and wild guesses, but i never even heard of anybody claiming "historical" figures from the future. sounds like they got the De Lorean up to 88 mph and still had enough plutonium to make a trip to fantasyland.

Originally Posted by Dr Kynes

first of all bro, social security medicare and medicaid as well as disability insurance etc are separate from general fund spending. they are financed by their own dedicated taxes (all excess is then looted for general spending, but the funds are separate as is the spending) including social securit (by your own numbers it's adding to the revenue stream, not reducing it $935 mil incoming, and only $731 outgoing) jamming together unrelated subjects to alter the numbers is disingenuous.


spending should be categorized in a reasonable way, or not lumped together at all.

I was unaware the debate was limited to discretionary spending!

So I'm not sure where you're coming from bud, you're bringing up mandatory spending as if it should not be counted in the budget, you are wrong. Obviously social security, medicare and medicaid are not discretionary but they are a part of our annual deficit and national debt.




your source is quite suspect. their data source is the estimates for 2011 from OMB, and "historical" data from 2013?????? with no budget, and only continuing resolutions both sides get to play fast and loose with projections estimates and wild guesses, but i never even heard of anybody claiming "historical" figures from the future. sounds like they got the De Lorean up to 88 mph and still had enough plutonium to make a trip to fantasyland.

I think you are a bit confused and mistaken. The source, George Soros funded Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, I purposely linked to discredit any kind of conservative bias whining from Noxiously. And I believe the historical data was from 2011 not 2013, unless of course you can point out otherwise.

It all comes down to 2 things
Is Romney Lying now?
or
Was he lying then?