File: 1456723470858.jpg (415.33 KB, 2776x1328, 347:166, bernie socialism capitalis….jpg)
736832 No.8464
Are leftists mentally ill? or just dumb?
f81a98 No.8466
A bit of both.
>billionaries get richer
And welfare queens keep getting fatter and shitting niglets now more than ever. The top 20% earners pay 84% of the federal income tax. What US is producing is basic supply/demand. It's not created out of thin air. If you seize it, years from now everyone will be starving, and the billionaires would be far away from here with their money.
18d79f No.8471
>>8466
>The top 20% earners pay 84% of the federal income tax
>%84
Wow! Who will pay for the gibsmedat when the top 20% is gone?
a65bc5 No.8556
>>8464
>we are producing enough to feed the hungry and provide what people need
We do.
>yet our economy works day after day to make billionaires richer
And does this mean they get all the food and whatever else people need? They get richer exactly because they are feeding the hungry and providing what people need.
Leftist voters are dumb faggots who can't think outside the box, but hey, isn't that what the majority population is, on either side. This Bernie's tweet however is a very clever distraction from the real nature of things, which plays into his favour, so well, if manipulation is being mentally ill, then he's mentally ill, but hey, manipulation is what makes men into great leaders, so you might as well just call everyone who's in a leading position and does well mentally ill.
6fbbfa No.8557
>>8556
leftists need to be shot tbh
8ea832 No.8644
da347b No.8658
If you actually read his reform, you'd know it makes fucking sense.
https://berniesanders.com/the-sanders-corporate-tax-reform-plan/
2bd712 No.8660
>>8658
Except it won't work
da347b No.8664
>>8660
Gr8 argument, please develop.
2bd712 No.8666
>>8664
Corporations will move their hq outside of the US. Byebye extortion sheckels. The middle class will suffer which will put pressure on the lower class as they sink further and further down.
cdada4 No.8669
>>8666
Nice trips, faggot.
If I understand properly, you're saying we should bend to show our asses to the companies because we can't do shit about it because they have the power?
I say we should take back the power and let the companies do what they should have been doing from the beginning : serving humanity instead of enslavering it.
So yeah, your argument makes sense if you take for granted the fact that the companies will have the power forever.
If you think any status quo has been there forever and will always be you're a fucking retard and you should kill yourself.
Things change if enough people want it and are ready to fight for it (unfortunately, most people are accostumed to slavery and even enjoy it as they think that's the only way things are possible).
da347b No.8672
>>8666
>moving HQ out of US
>implying
If you were talking about some other country, maybe, but the fucking US are too important, companies can't just get out. Besides, he'll probably tax foreign companies on import to prevent shit like this from happening.
Also
>extorsion money
I suppose you'll consider the 2008 bailout to be "solidarity", right?
cd33ef No.8679
>>8669
>I say we should take back the power and let the companies do what they should have been doing from the beginning : serving humanity instead of enslavering it.
>serving humanity instead of enslavering it.
kek'd & lol'd tbh. Companies have and will always be about making money. Tax rates have to competitive or they will flee.
>impose tarrifs
Yes. You do both. Make tax rates reasonable and impose tariffs. Carrot and stick. If you tax too much, it might be cheaper for them to move somewhere else and pay tariffs.
And by the way, top 20% earners pay 84% of federal income tax. Doesn't look like enslavement to me.
a19f0b No.8727
He forgot to put "not" between "are" and "producing".
Even if he did it though, he'd be wrong. We produce a massive amount of food, so much that we throw tons of it away and have to poison mountains of food so rats won't gigamultiply over it.
No homeless person in the West has to actually starve, and we feed the poorest of the world as well.
a19f0b No.8795
>>8658
>1) Increase the share of revenue that corporations pay.
Stopped reading right there.
Who do you think pays that tax?
9bef05 No.8823
>>8658
So it doesn't just make sense, it makes fucking sense?
>>8666
That already happens. I think it's called the Irish Sandwich.
7121f9 No.8912
>>8727
>that cringeworthy /pol/-tier image
smh tbh fam
2b5087 No.8988
a19f0b No.9209
>>8988
Dream world:
1. Levy 40% income tax on corporation.
2. Tax revenue from that corporation is $3 million.
3. Corporation fairly pays the $3 million because that's the law.
4. The CEO says "well I guess we lost that money, I'm fine with losing money".
Actual world:
1. Levy 40% income tax on corporation.
2. Tax revenue from that corporation is $3 million.
3. Corporation fairly pays the $3 million because that's the law.
4. The CEO slashes salaries, benefits, and number of workers.
5. The CEO raises prices of products.
6. The CEO screws over the stockholders Who are actually little grannies with retirement funds, not black barons in business suits.
7. The CEO notes "wow it looks like we have exactly $3 million back, what a fucking coincidence."
Workers, customers and retirement funds pay the actual 40% tax.
Please stop falling into this naive trap.
b85531 No.9234
There are two sorts of leftists, both are very different
1) The common type, concerned with actuality, supports welfare, higher taxation and bases his positions on what is going in his country
2) The theoretical leftists, who often claim to be the only real leftists, those are the ones you find on /leftypol/. They are completely drenched in detached ideology, modern day theologians of sorts.
71f153 No.9388
>>9368
What is it that you're taking issue with?
b813cd No.9397
Yes and no; Nes.
Leftism in general is based on the premise that there is plenty. Every decision, idea and general behavior effectively boils down to this. What the societal ramifications are, is irrelevant for your question, OP.
Since the very belief that nothing is scarce, many things that are unfortunate given in the real world like the very idea of conflict look pretty idiotic. Why bother if there is enough for everyone? A strong relationship to your ingroup or other people in general isn't that important as well. Why bother if there is enough for everyone? Being nice over being judgmental is also a big thing since you are not supposed to get into fights. Why bother if there is enough for everyone? Since there is so much out there you can simply graps, why thinking about so much about societal conflicts at all? All you therefor need are 2 feelings; total carelessness and utter horror. This avoidance of conflict with anyone leads to a special kind of social retardation that ends with hugboxes and group therapy over some faggot saying mean things near you.
But, and that is maybe one of the aspects that discerns us from mere animals, fear can be learned. Each unpleasant moment we meet face first trains it like a muscle and makes us more and more able to deal with. With this in mind you can see why something like red pill meme can even work.
13613f No.9452
>>8672
>If you were talking about some other country, maybe, but the fucking US are too important, companies can't just get out.
This happens constantly, a ton of "American" corporations all have their headquarters located in foreign nations
14e7d9 No.9457
>>8666
Your hero Trump wants to tax their overseas money already anyway
your move polnigger
36f255 No.9517
Post yfw leftists are retarded enough to spend money intended for food on a political candidate when the end results aren't even going to be in the next month
f949d5 No.9520
>>9449
The leftist chick looks hot tbh. Ethnicity?
bea805 No.9541
>>9520
She lives in Sweden. Probably an Arab immigrant. Spoilered because off-topic
5279d9 No.9544
>>8464
>Are leftists mentally ill? or just dumb?
IMO Leftism relies on feelings and opinions to back up their ideology.
Essentially: "If it feels good or right, then it is good and right."
>bernie socialism capitalis….jpg
Sanders there, actually believes everything he posted. Even if there is no factual evidence to back his statement up.
He actually believes that the reason there are "starving" people in the USA is because the owners/leaders of businesses actually want "poor" people to starve to death.
Additionally...there are zero people starving to death in the USA and there are zero people going hungry in this country through no fault of their own.
05a496 No.9578
>>9544
>Leftism relies on feelings and opinions to back up their ideology.
>nazi flag
top kek
b842b0 No.9627
>>9544
> Even if there is no factual evidence to back his statement up.
ay lmao
>there are zero people starving to death in the USA
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/malnutrition-killing-elderly-in-u-s/
5279d9 No.9654
>>9627
>http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2010/06/02/malnutrition-killing-elderly-in-u-s/
"Malnutrition is more prevalent among older adults, especially over the age of 70. They may eat too little, lack nutrition or have digestion problems related to aging. This can stem from certain medications, trouble chewing due to dental issues, problems swallowing or difficulty absorbing nutrients, according to the Mayo Clinic."
It's age and health related.
"The communities with higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, social isolation and disability are more likely to have higher rates of malnutrition-related deaths, wrote the author, Matthew Lee, a sociology professor at Louisiana State University."
So those poor people have less access to federal and private programs that would feed poor people and keep them from starving? Bullshit.
The fact is, if you cannot afford food, there are more than enough government and private programs that can get you food.
If you choose to not get them, that is your own problem, not the country's.
b842b0 No.9714
>>9654
>If you choose to not get them, that is your own problem, not the country's.
>The communities with higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, social isolation and disability are more likely to have higher rates of malnutrition-related deaths
>higher levels of socioeconomic disadvantage, social isolation and disability
how is this your "own problem" again?
even then it seems to go against your claim that "there are zero people starving to death in the USA", bucko. Talk about factual evidence.
>The fact is, if you cannot afford food, there are more than enough government and private programs that can get you food.
retard who doesn't live in America/not out of school yet detected
>what are less job opportunities
>what are jobs being shipped overseas
>what are higher demands and costs in high education
>what is lack of non-prison mental health care
c1021e No.9837
>>8639
>>8658
>>8669
>>8912
>>9368
>>9457
>>9627
>>9714
>asshurt lefties cry and post disinfo because they were called dumb
Kekelstein.
8b2289 No.9850
>>9627
I'm not understanding that first image. Is it implying that the average growth in food production worldwide as a percent is somehow higher than the growth in food production on any continent?
05a496 No.9854
>>9837
you can always go back to >>>/oven/ if you dont like it here
a19f0b No.9857
>>9234
>supports welfare, higher taxation
Don't forget larger government, banning free speech, tyranny and so on.
9ad784 No.9863
>>9857
>larger government
What's ironic is that they call others bootlickers
b842b0 No.9928
>>9837
>he doesn't have an arguement
>>9850
The graph is the percent change
5c026e No.9933
>>9209
I thought the Corp would simply get their people to lobby or get positions in the Government and then change the laws.
And then do the stuff you said to raise profits.
c711b0 No.9970
>>8464
but he's right. when I worked at a supermarket after school I personally had to throw tons of good food in the trash.
even calling the foodstamps people or local soup kitchens and homeless shelters to cart it away would be better.
a65bc5 No.9973
>>9970
this is why we should go back to local production of food too, a shitload of food gets thrown away on the way to supermarkets (which is increasingly more common from the other side of the world)
supermarkets are terrible for local production, a small local market cannot compete with a supermarket (both because you get everything there and because it can sell cheap shit way under price due to kikery)
oh and at least in europe it is illegal to give the leftover food to the poor, you're required to throw it away, and giving it to the poor is considered tax evasion
c711b0 No.9977
>>9973
who the fuck came up with that one? was there some kind of rort or just every major player wanting to keep their opponents from wounding the low end of the market?
and I'd sneak some of the top-notch shit into my backpack. I didn't know if I was allowed to or not but I didn't want to be called the pov kid.
a65bc5 No.9979
>>9977
I believe the second using the first as a justification
but seriously things like this is why the big government bureaucracy sucks
c711b0 No.9980
>>9979
I don't think it's inherent to government and that's just how it's codified. I think it might be inherent to human nature (loss aversion and the prisoners dilemma).
c9c294 No.9982
>>9973
>oh and at least in europe it is illegal to give the leftover food to the poor,
to the poor or the homeless? big difference.
a65bc5 No.9983
>>9982
both actually
it's only legal to sell leftover food to the shelters (where you of course get taxed)
c9c294 No.9986
>>9983
I agree with forbidding giving food to the homeless, but the poor? What's the angle? They don't want people to have communities that can take care of each other so they can control them better?
a65bc5 No.9988
>>9986
>They don't want people to have communities that can take care of each other so they can control them better?
I believe this is the whole point of social support nanny state, yes.
And the other thing is, well, you cannot tax what is given for free. The state loves a long supply chain because it can tax several times until the final price is mostly tax.
c711b0 No.9989
>>9986
presumably the justification is fraudulent tax writeoffs.
>invent new runny peanut butter
>even less crunchy than smooth peanut butter
>doesn't sell because crunchy peanut butter is objectively the best and this moves even further from the platonic ideal
>nothing of value was lost: the whole pallet goes to the flophouse, you can even claim the retail value back as a charitable donation
>still make margin on garbage
>rinse, repeat.
and imho feeding the homeless is probably more justified: the welfare queens and illiterate immigrants get housing department places and the homeless were largely innocent mental cases and runaway kids. junkys were equally prevalent in both groups
a65bc5 No.9994
to expand on the poor vs homeless; what is so wrong with not owning a home actually? I wouldn't mind gyppo-style nomads either (as long as they actually do some work and don't just steal, gypsies were traditionally skilled craftsmen but industrialization screwed them up), the whole "you need to own a home" thing is very much just another instrument of control
ff35e1 No.10037
>>9986
Its all about a huge, fucking pile of money! There are a few subconscious sentiments that play a role (Read >>9397 again but thing the crass opposite), but the real motive is Tax revenue and keeping basement cooks out of business, because they could destroy Maggi by reinventing instant stock.
>>9994
Its only a instrument of control as long as they can reach you. Attempt buying a forest in the middle of nowhere and build a hut in there, preferably very well hidden. They'll lose their shit.