Beware of the "socialist w---e"...
66
... She will eat you up!
Dreaded by capitalists, execrated by Geithner, versed in economics and finance (nobody will ridicule her with sparkling economical theories), the feminized version of Captain America doesn't mince matters when it comes to condemn wrongdoings at whatever step of the industrial and political sphere. Her aura has increased among the population as she recently and consequently entered the hall of fame of the political arena when a tea-party affiliate barked an irreverent "Socialist w---e" at Elisabeth Warren because she openly supported the justified occupy Wall Street movement. What is it so outrageous in her behavior that unleashed so much passion and hatred?
For years America played to the detriment of its people by agitating vigorously the fear mongering card of the communist shadow/specter floating over America if... If you don't adopt capitalism, if you are not a good American, if you are not religious, if you don't think as one, if you are not a patriot the way we (the majority of the oligarchy) are... Then, you will be ostracized, and the red monster will EAT you UP. Wasn't it the outline of the American propaganda? Goebbels found his master! Or did America emulate him?
The monster, the enemy is always depicted as the other. September 11 demonstrated the contrary and reestablished the factual veracity. Until now, the conservative mentality is still anchored in 17th century witchcraft belief. The infamy of the Salem witch trials reemerged under the disguise of MacCarthyism to punish any American individual to go astray from the flock. History taught us that obscurantism is the opium of the people. In their mind, Red riding hood is America minding her own business and the ugly wolf, dissimulated behind each tree of the forest, on the lookout for every human soul to devour, was Russia, China, Pakistan, Iraq... And, now, Iran. What we forgot or simply don't know is that most countries willingly adhered to the Soviet block, becoming hence its satellites (discard the countries that were invaded!).
When the Second World War ended, the Americans symbolized for many countries liberation. GIs' chocolate, gums, cigarettes seduced everybody. The Marshall plan made sure to leave a sweet memory on Westerners' psychics and subconscience -most of those democracies grew as economical powers and faithful allies, confer Great-Britain-. Unbelievably and against all odds, countries that experienced colonialism sought, beside freedom that was a must, an equalitarian society, more humane. The Soviet Union was the country to align with. As a fact, with its collective ideas and ideals, communism inspired many of the participants of the Bandung conference fearing rightly a resurgence of colonialism. Years later, it fell to oblivion with Soljenitsin's gloomy revelations. Each country adapted its own version of fair retribution hence giving birth to their socialisms.
Not far from a dictatorship, with an eternal bipartidism in the chambers obeying to the rules of the corporatocracy, with a plutarchic system shaping the national and foreign policy, with an at discretion fraudulent electoral process staining its democratic reputation (hanging chads in Florida, the biased Supreme Court decision after recounts...) adaptable to the Republican electorate's whims (redrawing of electoral districts, obligation to show an ID...), with its people on a tighter and tighter leash (the Bush administration set the markers for the conception of a Big Brother nation) united (they stood) against a fictive terrorism, America, within 32 years, lost its democratic virginity flirting with the inebriating fantasies of capitalism.
But times are changing. The wind of the revolution is blowing West (many still believe that revolution is red, thus Russian). The Occupy Wall Street movement is waking up a sleeping layer of the silent suffering majority. America is losing its capitalistic foundation and individualistic identity. America is building momentum. The "socialist w---e" trapped in America's entrails is kicking, is reviving since the signing of the constitution by its altruistic revolutionary forefathers, since Roosevelt's New Deal insult to the upper-class (the only owners of capital), since Kennedy's radical plan to social reforms. The "socialist w---e" lives within every compassionate being. The "socialist w---e" is a government to the rescue of the people during hardships. The "socialist w---e" opens her legs to soothe the people's wounds and mothers Social Security, subsidies, bailouts, suppression of the taxes penalizing the oil industry... The "socialist w---e" is a concept embracing social allegiance and market economy sedition from now on.
All over the world, the sparkle of anger ignited revolutions. In America as well, the people are fighting for their civil rights, are making a difference in Illinois, in Iowa and this time, are heard by the media, gaining terrain with their votes. Socialism always meant a focus on the social aspect of the economy, why is it so difficult to understand the parallelism? Isn't it what Elisabeth Warren conveyed in her messaging?
vote upvote downshareprintflag
- Useful
- Funny
- Awesome (2)
- Beautiful (1)
- Interesting (4)
CommentsLoading...
I may have accidently voted this "Down".
But wouldn't it be cool to see the person that the "Tea Party" used as a hero be one of the victims of the "American Awakening".
And might I share this on FB as you make some good points about the Right's MO.
It is time to support people who dare, who criticize! Thanks for your comments.
I love it when someone exposes the motivations and tactics of the Right.
Thank you xenonlit for being part of the critical thinking!
Socialism has bankrupted Greece, Italy, Portugal, Ireland, Spain, and to a great extent, the United States, yet the socialists keep blindly on, insisting they are right in the face of certain disaster.
Which socialism are you talking about? Italy? You mean Berlusconi? Everybody knows that never socialism was applied. Greece was bankrupted by members of the government who gambled for their own interests not because of their policy .
Only Northern countries like Sweden, Denmark privileged social issues and are strong and healthy economically. Even France, under a socialist government, stays with a capitalistic oriented policy. And it's a failure.
Show me one country that adopted pure capitalism and that stands on its feet!
Ah! So now, the Euro-socialism that the left used to boast about suddenly never existed after all? Greece is not socialist after all? They are not rioting because their troughs are empty and government is too broke to fund all that socialism any longer?
How advantageous! It's a miracle.
Advantageous or realistic? Obama is supposed to be socialist but nothing that he promised was applied. There's a discrepancy between one's colors and the policies conducted. You can't deny it.
To get the quintessence of what happened in Greece, since you seem interested, I advise you Greg Palast's last book and you will learn something. Better late than never!
"Obama is supposed to be socialist but nothing that he promised was applied"
Are you kidding? Obamacare is the largest social program ever created! Barack Obama and his income redistribution/attack the rich/cap and trade/anti-energy agendas make him the most socialistic president ever.
Don't you think that everybody has the right to dispose of an insurance at their income level. Doesn't everybody have the right to live decently, to have the freedom to access health care and education without thinking if they can afford it. A more equalitarian society.
What do you mean by rich? The ones who benefit from loopholes because it is within their financial means?
What does trade/anti-energy agendas entail? Be more specific!
"Doesn't everybody have the right to live decently..."
No.
We have the right to life and the freedom to pursue our goals, but we do not have any right to our neighbor's property or the fruits of his labor.
If someone who did nothing to earn it claims a right to the property of the one who did earn it, whose rights trump? The one who earned it or the one who did nothing to earn it?
What's wrong with socialism? Socialism says the one who did nothing to earn it has more right to someone's property than the one who did earn it!
You lived in a society that told you that everything you possess, you have to pay and the highest price. What will be the opportunity for a kid born in a trailer park to access college and pursue his goals? None unless he gets loans, if ever he has any! The only open door is the army. Nice dream.
What about the right to use and exploit people with lower wages? Will you stick to the same principle that negated the right to a decent life?
For ten years, salaries have been frozen and parallelly profits increase? The people (hard workers like you) submitted to greed don't they have the right to property or to enjoy the fruits of their labor?
"What will be the opportunity for a kid born in a trailer park to access college and pursue his goals?"
The same opportunity that I had, which was to get a job and pay my own way! My wife also paid her own way through college. Neither one of us depended on someone else to pay our way.
You are depending on emotional appeals to justify forcibly taking money from the ones who earned it in order to give it to those who did nothing to earn it! :
"What's wrong with socialism? Socialism says the one who did nothing to earn it has more right to someone's property than the one who did earn it!"
When was it? The economical background was more favorable, wasn't it?
Whose money am I taking if mine, yours, everybody's... Why would any companies receive subsidies and human beings (that is the fundamental cog of the machine) none?
Since you don't know and persist in your falsification of its definition, where is the point in debating with someone like you?
If you put forward a rational argumentation, I am all ears, if you bury yourself in stubbornness, it is a losing cause.
I asked you to cite a country that epitomized capitalism and that succeeded? Where is it?
"If you put forward a rational argumentation, I am all ears, if you bury yourself in stubbornness, it is a losing cause."
Translation: I can't dispute the truth of what you say, so I'll go for the personal attack.
That's what I mean by 'typical liberal' thinking.
NO. I want a debate with sustained foundations. If you don't sustain your assertions with demonstrative facts, where is the point. Pointing a finger at capitalism or socialism has nothing progressive without a factual basis.
You said (not per say)that socialism was the failure. Now to support your statement, bring me an example of a capitalistic country that is not a failure!
No, you want to whine when people disagree with your opinions.
Capitalism is the host and socialism is the leech. The US is a capitalistic country where we are all free to work hard and succeed. We are currently deep in debt, not because of capitalism, but because of massive social spending! Sixty cents of every dollar spent by government is for social programs, and forty cents of that dollar is borrowed!
The capitalist supported US Fed just bailed out socialist Europe with more money we do not have, so look for massive inflation, just around the corner.
All due to the idiocy of the socialist leechism.
Do you mean that the U.S.A is the example of a successful capitalistic economy? It is a joke, right? You're basing your success of capitalism upon the U.S.. Come on figures speak for themselves...
We've been in debts (it is almost endemic)since 1800 with its worst peak under the Bush administration. And, if I follow your reasoning, Bush started the massive social spending. Obama just continued the charitable work! Bush, therefore was a socialist hence the logical result, failure.
And, why would a capitalist FED run to save a "socialist" Europe because a capitalistic Wall-Street rigged the rules of the game? The first impacted were the European banks, the same capitalist rooted that gambled with American products.
I don't recall that banks are socialistic.
Why would the FED save Europe if not because it represents its first market. Very capitalistic reasons.
"Do you mean that the U.S.A is the example of a successful capitalistic economy?"
Yes, that's what I said. Social programs are currently killing us, but capitalism is saving us...so far.
Did you mean that the national debt (15 trillion) is caused by the mandatory spending (2,1 trillion)?
Capitalism destroyed the so envied American standard of life. It not America that is declining but capitalism.
"Capitalism destroyed the so envied American standard of life."
That is, by far, the most absurd statement I've ever read on HubPages. The standard of living we have enjoyed all these years has been the result of prosperity, created by the free market, hard work, and capitalism.
It is being destroyed by socialism, not just in the US, but around the world. Open your eyes.
Coming from you, I will take it as a compliment. Now, let's be serious, if America enjoyed prosperity it is due to idealized conditions, the after second world war market gave the U.S.A international hegemony and monopoly, the dollar as THE worldwide currency, as the currency of reference played an important role, the rise of the middle class ensured to the U.S. a national demand... However, with the development of Europe, the awakening of Japan and the rebirth of China, America learnt/ is learning to face competition (to its disadvantage). However, following the principle of capitalism, the capital being king, it implied reasserting its strong points that is to say : increase its profit margin and reduce its cost (mainly production related). This being said the mathematical logic of capitalism bounced on the middle and lower classes by affecting its purchasing power and consequently weakening the national demand.
Utter nonsense, and a good reason to leave this Hub.
Have a great day.
I scored. You just did not know. I forgive your ignorance. But when you know nothing it is better to be modest or else you will bite the dust.
maxoxam41, no use arguing with Will. He has sited the red monster and it is socialism.
Voted up and awesome and interesting. I would like to add,
Here Here! or is it Hear Hear? What is the origin of that phrase anyway? Some justice concept? All this to say, I thought your hub brilliant. And this time I am talking to you! Thanks.
Thank you VERY much it goes straight to my heart. Can you give me more precision as for your question?
"Hear all you good people, hear what this eloquent speaker has to say!" That is the origin of "Hear, Hear!" I answer my own question but apply it- with applause- to your well-written hub!
In French it would be "Oye, Oye".
Thank you VERY much, it encourages my humility.
Humility is under-rated! Hugs.
I will welcome them with open arms.
Maxoxam41, I too must congratulate you on an argument well hammered! This isn't to say I agree with you, but I don't agree either with the argument for pure capitalism. I view all of our efforts at governing as a failure.
In brief, 'pure' capitalism CAN work if greed is at a minimum - that's not happening. Socialism is clearly an evil because it does one thing very well: It causes the individual to become dependant upon the State for his/her needs. What the government provides, it can take away. Socialism makes it possible for the individual to become enslaved to the government rather than fight to survive against a cruel, greed driven capitalism; I'll take the latter problem any day over enslavement to government.
As I look at it, I feel good about there being somewhat of a stalemate in America between those advocating a more socialist approach and those advocating a more hands off government. This stalemate ensures, for a short time, that more of my freedoms don't disappear.
Pure capitalism was applied in Argentina in the 70's, until today they did not recover. The rest of the world surfs on the capitalism wave and it's collapsing...
The only country that deserves our attention is Autralia (thanks to Harry McG with his hub "Why we sometimes need budget deficit") since it is the only one that implemented the socialist Keynesian policy praising governmental spending and that is succeeding.
Starr for me to comment, you have to open your mouth. I won't read something for the sake of reading. You have to entice me! Nice to see you back!
That wasn't for you. That was for those who might be foolish enough to believe you.
And thanks to your advice, they won't. On your contrary, I let them free to believe me or not. They have a brain and they will use it.
For a second, I thought you missed me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!
Elizabeth Warren is leading for the Massachusetts senate seat (49%).
SWEET.
Max as per Argentina are you talking about Peron and his wife Isabel? Because that was military chaos, I thought?!
Yay EW! Maybe she can be our first female President in 2016!
I think you mean when Cavallo advised Carlos Menem who was elected in 1989? Maybe it was a type-o substituting 1970s for 1990s?!!
You got me there, by 70's I was thinking Pinochet (Chile), and by alluding to Argentina, in my mind was Menem and Cavallo, same school of thought: Chicago school. Both championed privatizations: their weapon of mass destruction.
Yep, that comes from knowing too much, lol! Hugs!
Knowing too much or growing senile?
Yeah Pinochet is a great example of pure capitalism gone mad not only an economic failure but a human one to (the killings of tens of thousands of communists and democratic supporters). As for Argentina it is my adopted Nation and is now doing very very well indeed under a democratic socialist government Kristina Kirshner (is a former communist guerrilla member) and was just re-elected with 76% of the vote (nearest opposition got 16%) and our economy is one of the fastest growing in the world. Great hub, voted up and interesting.
Thank you to bring facts and the reality to this platform. Most of the hubbers believe that pure capitalism is key to prosperity and personal well-being, but it is only propaganda! You give us a firsthand experience. Thank you, again!
I really enjoyed this. I really have nothing to add. Although don't know whether to laugh or cry when reading the comments left by Will. To think I have been living in the EU all these years believing that it was a capitalist free trade zone, when all along I have been living under socialism.
Will lives in another time, another era where communism, socialism were evil according to the U.S. propaganda! What worries me the most is that the youngest generations still believe it!
Thank you for reading and for the compliment!
You wrote, "For years America played to the detriment of its people by agitating vigorously the fear mongering card of the communist shadow/specter floating over America"
There is every reason to fear a system of slavery that murdered 100 million human souls in the 20th Century.
You wrote, "The infamy of the Salem witch trials reemerged under the disguise of MacCarthyism to punish any American individual to go astray from the flock."
As the Venona Project revealed, there were Soviet spies inside our nuclear weapons programs, the State Department, the Treasury, the OSS (CIA), and the White House. Nearly every American military and diplomatic agency of any importance was compromised to some extent by Soviet espionage, as were sectors of the governments of Britain, Australia, and Canada.
You wrote, "If you don't adopt capitalism, if you are not a good American."
Wherever the barriers to the free exercise of human ingenuity were removed by Capitalism, man rapidly improved his lot, with the lives of no class of people not substantially advanced. To appreciate the fantastic results of Capitalism, we must measure it by the hopes men held when it began; and there is no doubt that its success surpassed man’s wildest dreams. By the 20th Century, an average working man in the Western world had physical comforts, security, and personal independence, which for previous millennia would scarcely have been dreamed possible.
Even Karl Marx felt compelled to state the obvious about the system he was against, “The bourgeoisie [Capitalism] has been the first to show what man’s activity can bring about. It has accomplished wonders far surpassing Egyptian pyramids, Roman aqueducts, or Gothic cathedrals. The bourgeoisie draws all nations into civilization. It has created enormous cities and thus rescued a considerable part of the population from the idiocy of rural life. The bourgeoisie, during its rule of scarce one hundred years, has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together.”
You write, "What we forgot or simply don't know is that most countries willingly adhered to the Soviet block, becoming hence its satellites."
Then why was the Berlin Wall built? Have you ever heard of any political system besides socialism building walls not to keep invaders out but to keep people in? Why is cancelling all future elections the first thing all socialist regimes do? You think the People behind the Iron Curtain wanted to be there? Hundreds of thousands of them were killed trying to escape.
You write, "communism inspired many of the participants of the Bandung conference."
Those participants stated that the Third World would lead the world—transform the world—by its example as free, peaceful, industrious, and virtuous. The reality of the last 56 years is 180 degrees the opposite of that forecast. There were 1,700 secret police at your conference because so many of the participants were plotting to kill each other and they knew it. Nearly all the participants ended up murdered, in exile, or simply fabulously rich in disgrace after pillaging the countries they claimed to want to save. Most of them ended up with harems of sexual slaves. Political murder, massacres, rape, mutilation, and ritual torture became routine in these countries with millions of victims—not during colonialism but under the Bandung leaders themselves.
You write that voting in America is, "adaptable to the Republican electorate's whims (redrawing of electoral districts, obligation to show an ID)."
Why on earth should a person not identify themselves to vote? And the redrawing of congressional districts is largely done to create minority safe seats for Democrats.
You claim the US is "against a fictive terrorism."
The Islamists have committed one terrorist act after another against the civilized world. Their own words promise they will kill as many Western People as possible.
You say, "The "socialist w---e" lives within every compassionate being."
Leon Trotsky said, “In a country where the sole employer is the state, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: he who does not work shall not eat [from the Bible], has been replaced by a new one: he who does not obey shall not eat.”
Socialism is directed toward a single system of ends, and for it to succeed everybody must serve this system. People must accept and believe in the official values of the state. Beliefs will be chosen for people and imposed upon them by various forms of propaganda. Respect for human life, for the weak, and for the individual, must be abolished. Socialism requires the destruction of all morals in order to undermine the foundation of all morals: the truth.
All nations that have fully implemented Socialism have experienced a drastic drop in their standard of living, marked by both a lack of goods and food. Each has seen the loss of civil rights, liberty, and freedom.
Of all the Socialists who have come to power worldwide by decrying poverty, not one of them has ever increased productivity or abolished poverty—or even reduced poverty.
The actual practice of true Socialism is everywhere totalitarian. Violence is the only way to enforce Socialism on people. Socialism must have unlimited state authority in order to make people give up their possessions and give up their private interests.
Socialism has caused enormous human suffering, and it always destroys that which it purports to be about: equality. The bureaucracy required to centrally plan and administer a Socialist State grabs power and will do anything to keep it, including mass murder.
Utopias of Socialism cost 100 million people their lives in the 20th Century. Some Socialists simply shrug their shoulders and say you can’t make an omelette without breaking some eggs. Human beings are not eggs, and no omelette has emerged from the slaughter.
That is the opposite of compassionate.
I find it interesting that there is no compassionate response by the wealthiest Americans to the plight of the growing poor unable to cover health costs and unable to cover costs of private schools, whose lives have been forever changed due to self-serving capitalists who group all those "beneath" them into definitions of laziness and nonproductivity and simply say, "Let them eat cake." One finger pointing outward, the other three pointing back at them, as any kindergartner would observe.
You're telling me that capitalism enslaved nobody? Ask the factory workers as an example among others? How many people capitalism killed through colonizations and wars (Vietnam is another example. As Eisenhower said it rightly, "if the Vietnamese could have voted, they would have elected Ho Chi Minh as their leader with 80% of v otes". Americans were scared of communism not Vietnamese! The ones who supported the U.S. invasion were, once more, the owners of capital, the same bourgeoisie that you referred to!
Are you telling me that the U.S. never spied? A recent example was those so-called American trekkers caught in Iran!
The bourgeoisie created jobs, cities but at what price? Corruption, exploitation of labor, unhealthy standards of living...! Are Charles Dickens's books a reflection of his era or the figment of his imagination?
Apparently, you don't understand what "most" mean! I didn't say all of them!
Every critical mind knows that Al Qaeda is the product of the U.S. intelligence so enough of involving countries that only have their own interests!
I won't answer your biased and fallacious tirade on the Badung Conference.
Have you ever been in a socialist country? France, Italy, Portugal.. time to time are socialistic countries? Were you referring to them? And they never were fully socialists hence their miserable economical status of nowadays!
Once more, people on this platform mix communism and socialism! Why to answer if from the beginning they are at fault?
I agree with you. How many children can't even afford two meals a day in one of the richest country in the world?
Warren Buffet probably appeared to the eye of his brotherhood as the Judas! It was very courageous of him to reveal the discrepancies and iniquity of our society!
No system is perfect. Capitalism, Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Theocracy, Feudalism, etc., it doesn't matter, because every form has it's flaw.
That being said, pure communism and pure capitalism have a lot in common- a poor lower class of workers, people at the top who can get away with anything they want, and atrocities out the wazoo.
I did think Mr. Watkins had a lot of good points, as did this hub- but I tend to lean more towards Mr. Watkins point of view, in that the entire former Soviet block is in shambles, and only because of capitalism has it had a chance to renew. I cite for reference Romania, Georgia, the Baltic states (Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia), and others, who all broke away from communism and have since become very successful, in relative terms.
But, unrestricted capitalism is no god. What happened in America during the Great Depression (and again in the "Great Recession") was the result of wealthy families with too much interest and favor, greed, and poor management of watchdog groups in the government and congress.
When people get tired of one group or the other, revolutions unfold, government is re-established, gets too powerful or corrupt, and a new revolution occurs. It's a cycle, and one that no system will end completely.
Change is needed- but let's not be too hasty with cries of a Communist/Socialist paradise. There are very good reasons to be afraid of those ideals, and those reasons need to addressed with the same scrutiny you have so aptly applied to Capitalism.
Why commenters always assume that I am defending communism. I just stated that communism at that time was a free choice and the ones that picked it was the result of years of colonialism. Most of them adopted their communism, that is to say, their socialism.
Did we ever experience socialism? Never or maybe under new leaders like Chaves...
I never said that you were defending Communism- find a quote in that last comment of mine to suggest otherwise.
All I'm saying is that both Capitalism and Communism have major flaws, and screaming for Socialism/Communism when Capitalism fails isn't necessarily a good idea. Fix the problems with Capitalism, is all I'm saying- it's the popular system that's in charge now, we might as well try and make it better before throwing it out the door.
And Chavez is no hero. He's got a reputation for abusing civil liberties like free speech, and there was the whole coup attempt in 2002. People don't like him, even in his own country.
I've never screamed for socialism/communism, that is where you are confused. I am boosting a socialism that favors the people and the demand. That's it.
Were you in Venezuela? We always complain about countries that do better for the people! If he was such a dictator, wouldn't he be ostracized by Southern America? On the contrary, Southern America is rallying behind his concept of social welfare. So let's be realistic there!
If you had made researches, you would have known that the coup was supported by the elite (nothing new, who wants their benefits to be reduced?), but the people revolted and he was "reinstalled". For a student who aims at journalism, your version of facts is quite altered! You should learn critical thinking!
Were you in Venezuela? And I think my critical thinking skills are just fine, thanks. At least I form my own opinion and think for myself instead of rallying behind a Guy Fawkes mask and making things up.
I've tried to be civil and comment on your hubs respectfully, but now you're just trying to push my buttons. Chavez is a dictator, nothing more, and just because he is a popular dictator doesn't change that fact.
I will give you credit that the revolt was started by the wealthy- but thousands of people showed up, which tells me they had popular support. Also, you still have not addressed my concern over his suppression of media and free speech- what have you to say on that topic? What kind of grand leader forbids his people from criticizing him?
By freedom of the media do you mean the manipulation of the information by the media like in every country and "democracy"?
Pure capitalism? Imagine baseball or any other sport without rules or a referee. The issue is what rules are necessary to make sure free markets deliver on their promise of competition and efficient allocation of resources, The banks have proved time and time again that they will cut every corner to maximize their profits. Unregulated oil and mining companies would ruin the environment. And drug companies would sell harmful or ineffective drugs without the FDA. The financial industry doesn't like Elizabeth Warren because they know she can't be bought and because she will do her best to keep them honest. Capitalism needs more Elizabeth Warrens.
Ralph, I agree with you. As for Apple, it is representative of the corporations insolent behavior. They produce at the lowest cost possible. They install their headquarters in countries with taxation loopholes and sell to us at their highest prices.
There should be a regulation stating that every American product manufactured abroad should be heavily taxed to make the American national production more affordable meaning if Apple makes his products it should be taxed more than another U.S. company that is ready to hire Americans and pay American taxes.
Ralph Deeds Level 6 Commenter 6 months ago
Right on target. I hope she wins a seat in the Senate next year. She certainly fills the bill for Massachusetts better than Brown.