Millennials like socialism — until they get jobs

@Solaryellow: I'm going to have to tell all those homeless people living under the bridge to get off that gravy train. I bet they are all leftists too.

@Solaryellow: I wouldnt worry too much about it. The amount of your money that goes to handouts is so small that its a none issue. Let me know when its a problem, then we can talk about cutting funding for poor people.

... You guys are bitching over chump change, meanwhile the Pentagon "lost track" of upwards to 4 trillion dollars since 1996.. We just had a historical leak of the Panama papers showing global corruption and concrete proof of tax evasion by numerous individuals and corporations.. The Iraq War cost trillions of dollars, and had hundreds of thousands of American causalities leading to the current destabilized fiasco in the Middle East with ISIS.. Your basically bitching about your toast being burnt in a restaurant when the rest of the restaurant is on fire.. In less your this delusional to think that the few people who abuse the welfare system some how even remotely come close to the figures I just pointed out..

How ironic coming from the guy who said "CORPORATIONS are what makes the United States successful!"... Completely ignoring the infrastructure, the educated worker force, the consumer base, and countless other important parts to what makes a successful economy..

Don't forget some of those homeless deadbeats are military veterans, and many of those homeless people suffer untreated mental illnesses.... Very Christ like of them.

Furthermore I wish people could get through their heads that Bernie Sanders does not support a socialist government.. He merely supports programs which have been extremely successful in other western CAPITALIST nations.. In less your going to come here and tell me nations like Great Britain are socialist for their socialized healthcare which beats the United States in basically every metric possible..

First, I'm willing to bet you are one of those guys who uses "god" only when it suits them. Call it a hunch.

Maybe Mark and yourself can get together and deplete your bank account by helping everyone who needs it because you sure as hell don't care about those paying for these programs and if they are able to make their ends meet after being taxed. The country spends well outside of its means thus resorting to constant taxing and borrowing. Social programs cost a lot of money. Every dollar we spend needs to be addressed. You people never push for self reliance and why should you? It must be easier to tax everyone else rather than making people accountable for their situations because contrary to belief, a lot of these government dependents are there due to their actions.

@Solaryellow: I push self reliance on myself. I have no interest in preaching to others and telling them what they need to do. I would tell my government what I would like them to do. Stopping off shore tax havens is one thing I would preach to them. The rich are doing more to make you pay higher taxes than the poor. Didn't we already have that conversation?

@sSubZerOo: Lowest taxes in history lol, oh god didn't even have to read past that.

We have paid some of the lowest taxes since Dwight Eisenhower, sorry a bit of a exaggeration there..

Did cavemen had to pay taxes? (Well, they probably had to pay tribute to the male with the biggest stick, but that's another topic).

Cave men didn't exist during the creation of the United States hehe.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748703956604576109911650535554

Someone post the chart I'm on my phone.

this one?

What does Churchill know? I don't know Churchill as a person. What was he thinking? I don't know, what did he think. Is he right, I don't know.

I don't know, what is right.

What do you and I know what's right?

How do you know what I know?

I don't know, what do I think.

Who knows, right?

What is knowing?

I don't know either.

What I find quiet apparent is how you want to tell others what to do with their money but as soon as someone tells you to do the same, you cry foul. On multiple occasions we've established that EVERY dollar spent needs to be addressed. The "poor" don't get a free pass if the rich are being crucified. I believe you even admitted as such.

@sSubZerOo

When you don't have enough $$$$ one should tighten the belt and that includes addressing each and every expenditure. Unless you are unaware, our budget spends a lot of money on social programs. You guys can bitch about the rich, military spending, etc.., but none of that takes away from how much money is spent on social programs.

Hell, what in the world makes you believe all of us are dependents? if you pay taxes (on everything you do) on money YOU earn, you are nothing of a dependent. The government is not giving us any free service. We pay for it. I'm shocked how someone (you) participating in this discussion does not know how to define a dependent. Come to think of it I shouldn't be shocked. If you honestly believe you can not get on the government tit w/o working or being ill/elderly, I'll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge for pennies on the dollar. My own two eyes have witnessed unemployed people using government funded social programs. If you want a serious discussion, lets make it straight talk only.

.. Massive amounts of welfare recipients work.. And trivial things like sales taxes actually have a greater impact on them then they do to us due to how little money they have to spend..... Unemployed people can only collect benefits like unemployment for so long inless you can prove you have a disability.. I mean do you understand the concept of homeless people? Those people are not getting paid by the government to live on streets. The vast majority of welfare recipients work or are unable to work.. You'll get no argument here that it needs to be reformed.. It does.. But I am at odds what reformation to some people is, because it sure as hell isn't completely doing away with it..

And I am sorry but anecdotal bullshit means absolutely nothing.. You than follow it by a "serious discussion".. We have it signed into law that people have to actively look for work or train for a job to be eligible for welfare if they are able bodied.. Furthermore Welfare recipients include elderly and children.. You want them cut off too? If there was a amazing solution that would help the people that need it while cut out the people abusing the system, I would be all for it.. But simply cutting off millions upon millions of Americans, including the elderly and children, because some abuse it is absurd and stupid..

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/jan/28/terry-jeffrey/are-there-more-welfare-recipients-us-full-time-wor/ a great break down on the article.. No one here is defending the people abusing the system.. But basically your broad brush of entitlement that the vast majority of people are dead beats is absolutely wrong, and your solution is to more or less summarized to do away with it.. So basically screw the elderly, screw the disabled, screw the children.. They are a bunch of entitled dipshits.. Then again I can expect no less from the guy that was trying to defend Pacman's comments on gays..

That's the one. Notice that during our most prosperous times, after WW2 to the sixties the top payed the most taxes. Right before the great depression taxes were very low. The good times and the tax rate are almost proportional. Every time I hear taxing the rich more will ruin the economy I think about that. These days taxes are very low relatively and the rich often times don't even pay that and manage to avoid them all together. How many of us middle class people have tax havens? Capital gains tax is much lower and that's were most of the rich make a lot of their money. How much does that low capital gains tax help the middle class?

Socialism is a blanket term that really doesnt describe that much. A lot of US policy is socialistic - public roads, services, medicare, social security, etc.

Progressive Democrats proposed and signed into action The Federal Reserve act along with the Sixteenth Amendment in 1913. The Great Depression came after. The former granted a private central banking system the ability to create legal tender. Federal reserve notes were issued by the Federal Reserve in the form of debt to which every individual and entity including the US Government was required to pay interest. This ensured that there could never exist any capital without outstanding debt.

This debt-based currency necessitated the latter 16th amendment to be ratified in order for the government to collect income taxes to account for their debts and interests. The 16th amendment was, in multiple instanced, found to be unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

The forfeiture of the regulation of US currency to a private organization and the ratification of the 16th amendment are possibly the worst infractions upon individual liberty since institutional slavery. The Progressive Democrats desire for an Authoritarian government was now made clear, as unapportioned taxation is the ultimate means of social control.

It is clear that after WWII the US was very prosperous. This was because most of the industrial manufacturing ability throughout Europe and the Pacific were reduced to rubble. Meanwhile, US manufacturing peaked as a result of the US providing necessities to the rest of the world and US capitalists were investing in foreign industry. US corporations had become multinational corporations.

What you fail to mention is that it was during the 1950's that "tax havens" grew more prevalent due to post-war tax burden and the emergence of tax treaties and the formation of the OECD. This is why a less-regressive tax system was implemented. Some tax is better than none.

It was ultimately the 1999 bipartisan repeal of the Glass-Steagall act to blame for the current economic disparities. It was legislated in 1933 as a means to prevent another economic collapse. Is it coincidence that the same shit happened within 10 years of this repeal? Banks are out of control. "Tax havens" are just a piss in the ocean compared to deregulated banking.

I particularly like these type of graphs in light of recent developments like the Panama Papers and China's de-industrialization. The lowered tax rates are too much to bear, and China's $2 and change hourly wage is too high.

Race to the bottom.

No. Public roads are state funded. Medicare/Medicaid (also State regulated) is already screwing us and less than 15% of the population actually gets it, and social security isn't real. There's no "lock box" with your money in it. You will never see a social security check. It's funny how you fill out a 1040 every year but the government never sends us a statement telling us where all of our money ended up.

.. Claims he knows what he is talking about.. Says public roads are not socialistic because the STATE government instead of the Federal government fund them while completely ignoring federal highways on top of that..

Allegation:"....while completely ignoring...."

Irony: You only read one sentence.

Public roads are not "policies", they're infrastructure. Whats so unappealing about a private organization taking it upon themselves to build roads? The amount of capital required to build and maintain a roadway and lack of any practical means of acquiring revenue from consumers does not provide a good business model. States impose excise taxes on gasoline, charge for vehicle registrations, and inspections. If you want to talk about the DOT we can do that.

Then there's the thing I call The US Constitution.

Article I Section 8 "....To establish Post Offices and post Roads;...."

You have to have roads to get your US mail. But they still didn't mean spend millions of dollars on bridges to nowhere...

That's "Socialistic":

So you like the word "socialistic". You use the term "socialistic" to more are less describe anything that the government pays for. Unfortunately these things are not evidence of socialism or a socialist economy. Socialism has more to do with the economy than it does with "government programs". While you cite medicaid, hospitals and doctors offices are corporate entities. Government programs usually benefit corporate America more-so than any individual.

"Socialistic" things about America:

• Common Core Education - Globally the US ranks poorly in performance, but highest in spending per capita.
• Tax treaties - IRS double tax loopholes that result in "Tax Havens"
• Corporate Welfare / Crony Capitalism - Tax breaks and credits for corporations that are "friendly" to the government
• The 16th Amendment - Unnaportioned direct taxation
• The Federal Reserve - A Private Organization that props up government interests while protecting corrupt and greedy bankers
• The IRS - There is no law that requires you to pay a federal income tax. You give them your money without getting a receipt.
• The FCC - Government censorship of media
• The Department of Agriculture - Controls agriculture through subsidies. The whole industry is genetically engineered and modified.
• "The Great Society" Programs - Series of programs that promote single parent household poverty through subsidies
• ObamaCare - Forces individuals to purchase healthcare and penalizes them for not doing so. Inflates healthcare prices by regulating private health-insurance companies
• Social Security - We all pay it, but its kind of a joke that anyone my age will ever see it, but we're forced to pay it anyway...

These are just a few "socialistic" aspects of America and are most of the reasons why such inequality exists in terms of wealth distribution.

.. SO when your being critical of tax havens and crony capitalism you want government reformed to be stomped down on it right? You don't want the hilarious libertarian approach that would release any kind of restrictions bringing us back to 1890 like American economy right? You make it sound like this is the government's fault, and not the fact that the private sector has undermined the system for their own gain..

And no you do.. I specifically pointed out earlier on that Bernie Sanders isn't a socialist, he supports a free market capitalism.

And Iam sorry but what? Social Security was actually gaining and the root cause for the cost was the fact that it has been raided for other purposes by the government..

Wrong guy but you're one of those types.... You also need a capitalist to invest (at a risk) capital to get a company started. Who would you and your educated work force be working for and what would you be consuming if not for the capitalist?

Do you put money into the company at any risk? No.

If the company doesn't profit do you forfeit your earnings? No.

If the company is forced to close do you have to give up all of your assets? No.

1. Your only argument is to assume that I agree with the Libertarian Party's platform and address my points on that assumption. When you're forced to change my stance to that of which you have assumed, you essentially have no argument.
2. Corporations don't have the authority to legislate international tax treaties. The government does. How are tax havens not the governments fault? Even if multinationals abuse "loopholes", its still the governments fault. Corporations do not make loopholes, the government does.
3. Bernie Sanders is socialist. You're not making an argument by simply saying "not true".
4. "it has been raided for other purposes" Yes, my point exactly. It's the most socialist program in America and it fails because of corruption.

I don't really see bernie as a socialist, the only things he wants to socialize are public college, and health care....thats it, 2 of the most common sense things you can get, and one of them we aren't even paying for through through our own taxes. Everything else that is socialized, we already had. Hardly a socialist.

Also, just want to post another informative video. Republicans are pure scum bags, they are against socialism unless it favors them, like the wallstreet bailout. It's like the whole point of the republican party is to sabotage the government, then point and claim it's not good for anything, government = bad.