Socialism for the Rich

edited June 2019 in General
The United States has spent more subsidizing fossil fuels in recent years than it has on defense spending, according to a new report from the International Monetary Fund. The IMF found that direct and indirect subsidies for coal, oil and gas in the U.S. reached $649 billion in 2015.

People voting?

Protecting our elections?

Preventing climate change?

Reforming immigration laws?

Socialism is any policy they don’t like.



  • edited June 2019
    “Oil, gas and coal companies — and their stooges in public office — have long argued that making consumers pay for the full impacts of fossil fuel use would cripple the economy. The IMF experts call bullshit on this idea, revealing that the world would, in fact, be more prosperous. Eliminating subsidies for fossil fuels would have created global “net economic welfare gains” in 2015 of “more than $1.3 trillion, or 1.7 percent of global GDP,” the study found.”

    That ^^
  • edited June 2019
    Yes, all oil, gas, and coal subsidies need to be eliminated. We the tax payers are forced to pay for all the externalities and environmental damages these companies have inflected on our beleaguered planet. Enough already!
  • edited June 2019
    The trolls don’t have the balls (not the facts) to refute that they are the true socialists.

    Socialism for the rich. Rugged individualism for the poor.
  • edited June 2019
    imagine where the US of A would be in renewables if only half of this was used as renewable support and incentives
  • edited November -1
    I believe everything I read in Rolling Stone, especially campus rape stories. Can't blame Trump for this one. The study took place in 2015.
  • edited November -1
    F you and Republicans you cherry picking death cult. Don’t believe RS or IMF?


    Meanwhile in the real world:

    The One Percent Have Gotten $21 Trillion Richer Since 1989. The Bottom 50% Have Gotten Poorer.
  • edited June 2019
    The Federal Reserve just released some data that makes the state of this alignment easier to gauge. In its new Distributive Financial Accounts data series, the central bank offers a granular picture of how American capitalism has been distributing the gains of economic growth over the past three decades. Matt Bruenig of the People’s Policy Project took the Fed’s data and calculated how much the respective net worth of America’s top one percent and its bottom 50 percent has changed since 1989.

    He found that America’s superrich have grown about $21 trillion richer since Taylor Swift was born, while those in the bottom half of the wealth distribution have grown $900 billion poorer.
  • edited June 2019
    In 2016, the top 1 percent of taxpayers accounted for more income taxes paid than the bottom 90 percent combined. The top 1 percent of taxpayers paid roughly $538 billion, or 37.3 percent of all income taxes, while the bottom 90 percent paid about $440 billion, or 30.5 percent of all income taxes. The bottom 50% paid no income taxes at all, and most would have qualified for the Earned Income Credit, paid for mostly by that top 1 percent.

    What alternate reality do you live in that gives you the right to hurl such invectives? If you read the study, which you probably didn't, you'll see its conclusions are based on some deeply flawed assumptions. The authors admit they define subsidy very broadly and include things that are almost impossible to quantify monetarily. They tell us air pollution contributes to four fatal illnesses—strokes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, ischemic heart disease, and lung cancer. They claim that that if fossil fuels had been fairly priced in 2015, global carbon emissions would have been slashed by 28 percent. Deaths from fossil fuel-linked air pollution would have dropped by nearly half. How could they possible conclude that? How do you determine a death was caused by air pollution, instead of smoking, diet, obesity and other life style choices that contribute to those types of deaths. There is no data to support those conclusions. In the end, they so broadly define fossil fuel post-tax subsidies, particularly as it relates to the unquantifiable cost of health effects, that it's easy to show they are more than defense spending. So what!
  • edited November -1

    The problem with your argument is that, while the top 1% are paying 37.3 % of the taxes, they are taking home (or to the Cayman Islands) at least twice that percentage in income. So the net effect is they are in an unrealistically low tax bracket by percentages.
  • edited June 2019
    Blah blah blah. More bullshit from the death cult.

    Meanwhile, fossil fuel sock puppets lose in court and have to apologize for being lying fuckwits.

    In 2011, renowned scientist Michael E. Mann sued a Canadian think tank that published an interview suggesting his work on climate change was fraud.
    Eight years later, the Winnipeg-based Frontier Centre for Public Policy—which often promotes climate change denial—apologized Friday and wiped the inflammatory interview from its website.
  • edited June 2019
    Just stop being a lying fuckwit, Steve.
  • edited June 2019
    This wealth concentration by the top few % is not just in Democractic societies, but also in Socialism, Communism. Kingdoms and even Churches.

    All these societies funnel all the wealth to the people at the top, in power. Even in Cuba,Fidel and his government elite were the richest in all the island. The celebrated Peons lived mostly in poverty and squalor. Nobody is giving a $15 minimum wage in any of the Communist countries.

    In Russia, a Communists/Socalist society, Putin is perhaps the richest person, followed by his Czars and Oligarcs.
    In empoverished North Korea, their Dear Leader lives a life of luxury and privledge.

    Bernie says that the poor die 15 years earlier that the rich in USA. Probably right, but that also is the same in all the other systems. Those with wealth and power have better medical care, eat better and live protected lives. Of course they live longer. Fidel Castro lived to a nice old age, and had fantastic medical care when he fell ill, prolonging his life far longer than if he was a field worker.

    One big difference I have noted is that only in Capitalist systems do the rich pay way more that their "fair share". They pay tremendous amounts in taxes. Some of the cleverest find ways to avoid or delay the tax man, but for the most part they pay a huge share of the taxes. Also the middle classes pay significant taxes and the poor pay almost no income taxes. Everyone gets hit with consumption taxes (except for the criminal element is all wealth segments)

    Biggest difference is that in most capitalist systems everyone at least has a shot at becoming wealthy. Elon Musk was not born rich, Steve Jobs worked his way up, Jeff Bezos made his own bi$$ions. Even those rich people on Shark tank came from poor beggings, and each has gotten wealthy by different means.

    In Communist/Socialist/Markist governments, you mostly get ahead by ruthless elimination of your competitors and those above you. Kings and Queens often get on the throne by violence, war, domination of other territories or killing off the siblings ahead of them in succession to the Crown.

    The Pope is one of the richest in the world, yet claims poverty and suffering while wearing Ermine shawls, wearing priceless jewels, and being driven around in his Popemobile. He has the financial wherewithall to feed and reduce suffering for millions, but is not going to sell a single gold chalice.

    This is the way of the world. Pretending that Democracy is horrible, but Socalism is better,, is perhaps being blind to the reality of the World.
  • edited June 2019
    Socialism is here. Already. For the rich. To pretend we live in a capitalist society is beyond stupid.

    It requires active lying.

    See above.
  • edited June 2019
    And people wonder why they can't balance the budget...
  • edited June 2019
    I sometimes wonder when I hear others ranting about our great country. I hear them use words like Socialism, redistribution, fair share, rich, poor.
    Socialism/redistribution is simply taking from those who have and giving to those who don’t have, it’s that simple.
    It’s never worked before, anywhere.
    If those who would feel better with that system, perhaps they can lead the charge and get the ball rolling, no need to wait for elected officials, let’s start with everyone here, let’s start with “redistributing”, let’s “ redistribute” our Tesla’s , I mean, seriously, it’s not fair that some have when others want but can’t. So all are to hand over their Tesla’s to a more needy person. Let’s move on to your savings........
    Our system isn’t perfect, but it’s darn good. It’s been here for over 200 years and people from all over the world are still immigrating here.
    I listened to interviews with recent immigrants who immigrated here from Socialist type countries, and they are totally baffled at why the hell anyone here would even talk about changing to a Socialist society.
    The immigrants lived there, lived it and got the hell out. Nuff said.
    To the people who think they can take what is mine:
    I and my family volunteer heavily, I've helped in soup kitchens for the poor, the veterans, the lonely, the mentally ill, the homeless. I’ve raised money for scholarships for the less fortunate, helped needy families with food donations at food banks, helped with children who are mentally and physical handicapped etc......... reaching out and helping those is what makes America great. It’s redistribution of ones heart, of caring, of love and concern. It’s not about transfer of wealth, it’s about transfer of love and compassion. And that only comes from ones heart, not stealing from others hard earned money.
    You have no right to take what I’ve worked hard for and have earned for me and my family.
    If you don’t like it here perhaps you can start a new trend, move to another country where you’ll be happier. Best wishes to you.
  • edited June 2019

    Please educate yourself.

    You are an embarrassment
  • edited November -1
    Maifert and Uncle, here is your argument in historical terms. A serf was allowed to work on a lord's land. The landlord kept most of the harvest because after all, it was grown on the land the landlord owned by heredity. The serf was allowed to keep a subsistence level of the harvest.

    How dare the serfs demand for themselves what properly belonged to the landlord! By giving a subsistence level of what the landlord owned back to the serfs (remember, the serfs didn't own anything) the landlords paid the highest taxes.

    Darn uppity serfs!
  • edited June 2019
  • edited November -1
    Solar works
    And coal is dying
  • edited June 2019
    I am close to the 5% (a more reasonable number IMO when comparing the haves to the have nots).

    I am a proud snowflake liberal and will soon vote in my first presidential election.

    I will wholeheartedly and knowingly vote against my own self interests in this upcoming election in favor of higher taxes, fewer tax deductions for the rich, and more tax breaks for the less privileged.


    Because I believe that the economically disadvantaged should be given a step up (even at the cost of another vacation for me).

    I believe that the less-privileged should be given the right to a comprehensive, well rounded grade-school and high school education (I can do without a third domicile in Teluride, though that would be sweet).

    I believe that the income gap between the haves and have-nots is insane and should be corrected (even though I would love to have a J-35 to sail around in).

    Finally, I believe that our society will be better off if the wealthy help rebuild the crumbling infrastructure of our country, since the less fortunate just can’t afford to help us do it (I do like Chateau Lafite, 1968 especially, but not at the expense of potholed roads and collapsing bridges, terrible electrical grids, and all-consuming poverty for a large percentage of our country).

    In short, I feel that we are better off as Americans if ALL OF US are better off, not just the few fortunate ones like me (and to be fair, my wife and kids).

    Why we are subsidizing air/water/soil-polluting international companies who make enormous profits even without our help beggars the imagination. I just have no idea how this can be.

    Why can we subsidize Royal Dutch Shell, but not provide clean water for the poor citizens of Flint MI? How is this even possible?

    For all the “everything is better when we rely on our own initiative” crowd, how can we ever be better as a society when the least fortunate of our fellow citizens don’t even have clean drinking water?

    Sorry for the rant, and I apologize if anyone was offended by my post.
  • edited June 2019
  • edited November -1
  • edited November -1
    @ButfaloBills. +1

    Even if the 1% didn't have the heart to care, the numbers would work against them in a revolution.
  • edited June 2019
    BuffaloBills Fan.

    Well though out and self sacrificing touching argument for wealth distribution.

    Problem is with the math. There are not enough multi millionairs to give enough to raise the standard of living of the 6 Billion relatively poor in the world.

    If you give up driving a nice car, Live in a smaller house, and vacation less, it will make almost an insignificant difference in the multitude of less well off.

    It is kind of like a life raft that holds 20 people. Has enough food and water to keep those 20 people alive until rescued. If 50 people try to climb on, the raft will sink and all well die. Well meaning rafters will keep bringing on clingers one by one until the raft reaches max capacity and all go down with the ship.

    When you can no longer find a hospital bed because thay are already taken by the poor. When you cannot get an appointment with a Doctor because they are overwhelmend by the poor. When you cannot get your kids into a good college because those seats have been allocated for the underprivileged, and when there is not enough food ot go around because the poor have the allocations, then perhaps you will understand the folly.
  • edited November -1
    @uncle Paul. Listen to Elizabeth Warren and she will show you the math to make a good start within this country. Your strawman argument is that if we cannot show a perfect end result we should not try. The end result will eventually come. Your arguments are not Germaine. I will just address the last one. Just because we don’t have sufficient hospital beds is not a reason to deny healthcare to those less well off. How about society providing enough resources to take care of the whole population. Yes there is a pecking order of priorities but food, affordable housing, healthcare, the environment and education are right up there.
Sign In or Register to comment.