You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

1
2

[–] LiberatedDeathStar 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago 

The whole concept of the welfare state goes against math. People vote themselves free things, and they have no concept of their value. Pair that with fiat currencies which allow the central banks to dictate currency, and you end up with an entire system already not based on math.

Sanders isn't special in his inability to do math, he's just the newest iteration.

0
0

[–] iwasnotshadowbanned ago 

Which states vote republican? Which states have the highest number of people on welfare? Do some basic research.

0
0

[–] LiberatedDeathStar ago  (edited ago)

And how many Republicans advocate for the abolition of the welfare state? Not many. Furthermore, these numbers of people on welfare are well below 50%. How about you look at your research and actually do some thinking.

Most of the red states vote on something called principles, and the number that does that well outweighs the number voting for their own greed. Even then, most of the Republicans are not Ron Paul, so this is a completely irrelevant conversation. There are few Republicans advocating the abolition of the welfare state, and most people are voting for perpetuating it, regardless of whether they're Democrat or Republican. I don't see many Republicans calling for the repeal of Social Security or anything of the sort.

This is about the most off-topic rebuttal you could have put forward in so many ways.

1
0

[–] nomenimion 1 point 0 points (+1|-1) ago 

Why? How many major countries can you name that have collapsed because their welfare states became too expensive to maintain?

1
2

[–] daskapitalist 1 point 2 points (+3|-1) ago  (edited ago)

Greece? Soviet Russia? Zimbabwe? Venezuela? I can keep naming socialist hellholes that have de facto collapsed due to their inability to fund their gibs....