Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Marx's concept of socialism follows from his concept of man. It should be clear by now that according to this concept, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an "abstract capitalist" were the employer, even if "the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation," [89] this would not be socialism. In fact, as Marx says quite clearly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "communism as such is not the aim of human development." What, then, is the aim? Quite clearly the aim of socialism is man. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world. Socialism for Marx was, as Paul Tillich put it, "a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality." [90] Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91]
Wow. Hondo goggled communism. Post the link. I’d love to learn more.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
Bob doesn't understand what "reassign those responsibilities" means. Idiot.
No I understand perfectly. The "responsibilities" are being "reassign[ed]" because Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol. Something you said was a lie.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
I'm on hold with Venezuela and Cuba. Trying get get their full plans for their success and high standard of living. Vietnam, N. Korea and China didn't answer the phone.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
There's no need to bastardize the language just to satisfy Hondo's dishonest dumbfuckery.
so·cial·ized med·i·cine
the provision of medical and hospital care for all by means of public funds.
Marx's concept of socialism follows from his concept of man. It should be clear by now that according to this concept, socialism is not a society of regimented, automatized individuals, regardless of whether there is equality of income or not, and regardless of whether they are well fed and well clad. It is not a society in which the individual is subordinated to the state, to the machine, to the bureaucracy. Even if the state as an "abstract capitalist" were the employer, even if "the entire social capital were united in the hands either of a single capitalist or a single capitalist corporation," [89] this would not be socialism. In fact, as Marx says quite clearly in the Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts, "communism as such is not the aim of human development." What, then, is the aim? Quite clearly the aim of socialism is man. It is to create a form of production and an organization of society in which man can overcome alienation from his product, from his work, from his fellow man, from himself and from nature; in which he can return to himself and grasp the world with his own powers, thus becoming one with the world. Socialism for Marx was, as Paul Tillich put it, "a resistance movement against the destruction of love in social reality." [90] Marx expressed the aim of socialism with great clarity at the end of the third volume of Capital: "In fact, the realm of freedom does not commence until the point is passed where labor under the compulsion of necessity and of external utility is required. In the very nature of things it lies beyond the sphere of material production in the strict meaning of the term. Just as the savage must wrestle with nature, in order to satisfy his wants, in order to maintain his life and reproduce it, so civilized man has to do it, and he must do it in all forms of society and under all possible modes of production. With his development the realm of natural necessity expands, because his wants increase; but at the same time the forces of production increase, by which these wants are satisfied. The freedom in this field cannot consist of anything else but of the fact that socialized man, the associated producers, regulate their interchange with nature rationally, bring it under their common control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power; they accomplish their task with the least expenditure of energy and under conditions most adequate to their human nature and most worthy of it. But it always remains a realm of necessity. Beyond it begins that development of human power, which is its own end, the true realm of freedom, which, however, can flourish only upon that realm of necessity as its basis." [91]
Wow. Hondo goggled communism. Post the link. I’d love to learn more.
Never mind. Eric Fromm and the Frankfurt School. I’ve read it. To the re-education camps for those who disagree!
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?
I'm on hold with Venezuela and Cuba. Trying get get their full plans for their success and high standard of living. Vietnam, N. Korea and China didn't answer the phone.
It would have worked but the USA imposed sanctions!!!!!
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
But in this instance the government isn't just controlling the purse strings.
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?
JFC. What are we arguing about again?
If tranny’s are the backbone of our nation or not.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's more social democracy than socialism, but still, wealth transfer is wealth transfer.
It’s state control of the largest segment of our economy (by employment). Nothing democratic about that. It’s statist, straight up.
And it we want to go for full irony @Southerndawg it could be argued that an enlightened despot could in theory be a better guarantor of our life, liberty and property than democracy.
We’re not a democracy. They devolve Into mob rule. Guaranteed failure. Viva La Republica!
Hows your republican democracy treating your pocket book fren?
The Constitutional Republic and my choice of career paths have been good to me, can’t complain overall. But it is most definitely better during times of low taxation and lessened government interference.
You can still get tyranny of the majority in a Constitutional Republic. It just takes longer. The trend line, however, is the losers in our society wanting ever more from the winners. The big question is what can we do to lessen the number of losers.
Or pandering for votes? Since we don’t have a Democracy and no one person or group of people would be the “backbone” of it if we did, I’m going with pandering for votes. Maybe even using them as props.
Calling a representative republic a democracy is closer than calling Medicare for all a communism. HTH
Which no one did. Idiot.
People call Medicare for all socialism and communism here on a daily basis. You are doing it in sheet thread right now. And you don't even see it. Sad!
Medicare for all is Socialism. It is socialized medicine. Quote the person who called it Communism.
It's actually not socialism. Look up what socialism actually is. Look up the economies that Hitler, Stalin, and Mao had.
And sledog says hello.
Got it, it's Socialized medicine but it's not Socialism. It's healthcare that's paid for by the state but according to Hondo the stupid Kunt, it's not Socialism. And Bernie wants to "break up" ICE and the Border Patrol, but again, according to Hondo the lying Kunt, it's a lie to say Bernie wants to "dismantle" ICE and the Border Patrol.
Hondo has his own words and meanings for words.
It's just so god damned messy with the words these day. All the olds that love Trump love their Medicare but hate "socialism". So if the government is just picking up the tab, but doesn't control or own the means of production- i.e., docs and hospitals - is it really REAL socialism?
Who’s picking up the tab? Rhetorical question. The government does not pick up tabs. They confiscate revenue via taxes, borrow some more, and then spend it as they see fit.
And do you really mean to parse the control over means of production when the purse strings ultimately dictate such and in this case there will be only one purse?
There are plenty of for profit companies in the economy where the government controls the purse strings.
Comments
If you have a ice cream business, and I have the power to tell you what kind of ice cream you can sell, how much you can charge for that ice cream and who you have to sell or not sell that ice cream to, is that business still really yours?