I call Joe Conservative a "trumpy moron" fully realizing the redundancy of that phrase, btw. I could have as easily called him a "trumpy trumper" or a "moronic moron". The point is, Joe Conservative is an idiot.
The following JC comment came after a series of stupid comments. This one, however, stood out due to the fact that JC (a wealth worshipper) speaks against corporatism while 1 not understanding what corporatism is, and 2 being ignorant of the fact that DJT's massive tax cut (slashing the corporate rate down to 21% while eliminating zero loopholes) IS corporatism!
| Joe Conservative: LOL! The "socialism" aka "corporatism" is what directs wealth "upward". These mini-socialisms are taxed at half the rate of individuals. And they're "immortal" to boot! (12/26/2017 at 11:34am). |
Sounds like he'd be in favor of RAISING the corporate rate. Yet earlier in the thread he expressed support for Trump (writing that "Never Trump" people aren't Republicans and he was happy they were leaving the party).
So he DOESN'T KNOW that Trump's (just signed) tax legislation slashed the corporate rate. The rate that is responsible for directing wealth upward? Apparently not. Although (given the fact that the WYD blog proprietor Lisa disabled new comments), I guess we'll never know. JC did not, however, say a damn thing (while writing that corporate entities pay half the rate of individuals) say a damn thing about the recent corporate rate cut (which will surely make things worse).
Additionally, socialism and corporatism are exact opposites. Socialism is "for the people", while corporatism is for the non people (corporate entities that exist on paper). A deliberate conflation, perhaps. Although maybe just more stupidity. Given the fact that speaking against corporatism (when the predisent he supports just signed a corporatist tax bill) doesn't jibe with a comment he made earlier (this is the one that identified JC to me as a wealth worshipper).
| Joe Conservative: If the 1% didn't prosper, imagine how poor the other 99% woulds be. Resentment, thy name is "democrat". (12/25/2017 at 5:25am). |
Most (if not all) Republicans are wealth worshippers, so the comment above isn't shocking. Wrong, but not shocking (wrong because consumers are the real job creators. Trickle down and supply side economic being PURE bullshit). The other comment (wrongly equating socialism and corporatism) is just perplexing. Given his support for Trump (who just pass a corporatist tax cut) and support for the wealthy (as Trump told his Mar-a-Lago customers "you all just got a lot richer" (belying his LIE that his tax cut would benefit the Middle Class and not be good for rich folks).
"The focus is on middle-class tax relief" the dissembling Paul Ryan said, echoing the same lie told by Trump. Even though Trump's economic advisor Gary Cohn (and other Republicans) admitted that the tax bill was being written for THE DONORS. "The most excited group out there are big CEOs, about our tax plan" according to Cohn.
These BIG CEOs would be the leaders of the "mini-socialisms" Joe Conservative says are responsible for wealth inequality. Which, I'm assuming he thinks is bad (taxing them at a much lower rate than a flesh and blood individual). Yet, instead of realizing Trump and the Republicans are to blame, he thinks it's Democrats (why he blames socialism, which the Democrats think we need more of and the Republicans think we need less of).
FYI, MORON, Democrats are opposed to corporatism and corporatism is the OPPOSITE of socialism. This is why no Democrats voted for Trump's tax legislation. Giving corporations a huge tax cut won't bring jobs back, btw (they're going to buy back their own stock). A tax cut for the Middle Class would do that... by putting more money in the average worker's pocket, with which he go out and buy stuff, thereby increasing demand... the REAL driver of our economy.
But, instead of being FOCUSED on the Middle Class, most "tax relief" goes to the wealth and corporations. The BULK of the "tax relief" won't do SQUAT to increase demand. Given the fact that the Middle Class tax cuts are much smaller and will expire. Economics 101, I'd say. Yet Conservative like Joe believe the opposite is true. Give tax breaks to corporations and they will hire people to produce more product... that won't sell. Idiots.
Image: Donald Trump reveals to Paul Ryan how to trick Republican voting sheep (idiots like Joe Conservative) into electing a Republican President so they can enact their plutocratic dream of slashing the taxes of the wealthy and corporations.
Sounds like he'd be in favor of RAISING the corporate rate.
ReplyDeleteIndeed. But there is a difference between "tactics" and "strategies". As my old Navy Sci prof used to say, "Tactics are when you Nape a Viet Cong village, strategy is when you drop a box of candy bars in the village, wait until the children gather, and THEN drop a load of napalm on the village."
Raising corporate taxes would just offshore more corporate jobs to China. Let's bring them all home first, before we "shut the gate" on corporations. The box of candy bars has just landed.
Trump went to military school. He understands the difference between tactics and strategies.
Joe Conservative: Raising corporate taxes would just offshore more corporate jobs to China. Let's bring them all home first, before we "shut the gate" on corporations.
DeleteThere is no such strategy. BTW, you want to napalm kids?!
Let me ask you a question, Dervish, who is your vrag proletariata then? The Kulaks? What's your government ideal trying to do? Redistribute wealth to everyone? What does it punish? What does it reward?
DeleteSO far, youu're sounding a lot like China with its' 3 Represents. Again, Capitalism w/ASIAN values.
No, I like capitalism with Nordic values.
DeleteNow that they've opened their border, let's see how that works out for the Swedes. :)
Deleteps - Corporatism's a "Nordic value"? Who knew? You must love "Citizen's United" and the rule of the Struldbrugs.
DeleteAdditionally, socialism and corporatism are exact opposites. Socialism is "for the people", while corporatism is for the non people (corporate entities that exist on paper).
ReplyDeleteEver hear of the original US colonies? Many were legal "corporations" The British colonies of North America were founded as either corporate colonies or as proprietary colonies. Corporate colonies had a charter that the English monarch granted to stockholders, but they were essentially governed by the monarch. King James I (1603–25) granted corporate charters for the settlement of Virginia (founded 1607) and Massachusetts (1620). The charters stipulated that the king appoint the colonial governor who arrived in America with a royal commission and a set of instructions from the British Board of Trade. Each colony would have its own legislature made up of a crown-appointed council (of important citizens) and an elected assembly. The assembly was empowered to pass laws that had to be approved by the royal government of England before they could go into effect.
There were many problems with this system. While England regarded the royal commission given to each governor as absolute, the colonists often lacked reverence for the commissions, viewing them as impractical instructions. Colonial governors were supposed to serve the interests of the king as well as the interests of the colonists. These concerns were often in opposition to each other. Because the legislative assembly had control over all money bills, if it was in opposition to the governor, it could delay appropriations bills favored by the governor and it could even refuse to pay the governor's salary. The governor, on the other hand, could veto assembly legislation he did not favor. He could also, with the approval of the council (advisory board), appoint judges and other officers, issue paper money, establish martial law, and summon the assembly.
How about "the Mayflower Compact"?
Know what a "B" corporation is?
I propose that we eventually outlaw the "corporate form" of legal protections and privileges entirely. But given the nature of our economy, only a fool what attempt to do so "cold turkey".
ReplyDeleteI see that you're still pining for the welfare state, dervish. Good luck with that. Europe and the EU are about to implode with all the parasites they're adding to their economies.
ReplyDeleteDervish is a Democratic Socialist, like Bernie. They're determined to answer the scientific question as to how many ticks it takes to kill a large dog.
ReplyDeleteTicks are small, dogs (compared to ticks) are large. The American population that does not fall into the "oligarch" category is large. They are the dogs and the oligarchs are the ticks. Conservatives like Joe and Beanie are determined to answer the question as to how much blood can the ticks suck out before the dog dies.
Delete