Skip to main content

💳The U$A: Worlds most socialist country?

  1. a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

Why would I propose that the US is the worlds most socialist country? 

Actually its reverse socialism for the rich where the rich banks are on welfare, at the expense of taxpayers, they (the banks) finance everything (therefore the taxpayers who bailed them out actually finance everything and it follows logically that the taxpayer finances all means of production) Here is the proof:

What percentage of the United States is fully privately owned and what percentage is bank financed?

What Percentage of the banks should be publicly owned due to the bailouts but is not due to the greatest con on earth?  (Size of the forward projected bailout figure that the taxpayer is on the hook for but banks remain privately owned instead of state owned)

29 Trillion (you read that correctly!) 

*Ok they removed the above article, unsurprisingly. No problem, you can access an archived version of its at by copying the above URL and pasting it in the search bar HERE. (Screenshot below.)

What is the typical US Budget?

Military spend is socialist spend! 

The trillions  spent on needless wars has bankrupted America.

Murder for profit , protection of the Petrodollar, control of resources and a pretext  to manufacture conflict in n order use the  Equipment we paid for to murder innocents and steal their oil.

Now here is the part that where you get to know exactly how you are being screwed!

 Corporations on Welfare.

Which Billionaires are you sponsoring?

Good Jobs First, an economic development watchdog group, published Tuesday what it considers to be the first comprehensive database of corporate subsidies at the federal level, tallying awards from 137 different programs. 

Here  is a   report that  covers 379 companies from the Fortune list that were profitable in 2018 and finds that 91 paid an effective federal tax rate of 0% or less. Those companies come from a wide range of industries and include the likes of AmazonStarbucks and Chevron.

How do small business owners compete against that when it's their tax subsidizing these giants? You must pay YOUR STAFF as well as Amazon's staff!

Discover Where Corporations are Getting Taxpayer Assistance Across the United States

SUBSIDY TRACKER is the first national search engine for economic development subsidies and other forms of government financial assistance to business.

Subsidy award entries: 672,000 (429,000 state/local; 243,00Bl)
Subsidy programs: 1,045 (907 state/local; 138 federal)
Parent companies covered: 2,934

Uncle Sam's Favorite Corporations (report on federal data)
Megadeals (largest state and local subsidy awards)
Inventory of data sources
TARP and ARRA data
Update log

Other examples of socialism spend and gross financial mismanagement funded by society and spent by the elite:

Popular Recent Posts

Bumper collection of "climate change" FAILS. Its all here: lies; fraud; censorship; bogus predictions; failed models & even doomsday cultism.

Index 1) Misleading "Greenhouse" model 2) Fraud and data fudging 3) Failed Predictions going back over 50 years 4) Failed science &  models 5) Fundamental flaw in the premise 1) Misleading "Greenhouse" model  Note: The graphs below illustrate at a glance that whatever the actual role of CO2 (by correlation between temperature and CO2) it is certainly not consistent with a gas making up 0.04% of the atmosphere functioning like a glass roof. This is a pity because Mars (96% CO2) would probably be a bit warmer if it were. The graphs come from a single excellent recent paper (details below) which is well worth a read. It is less about CO2 in isolation and more about CO2 with respect to THE GREENHOUSE EFFECT itself.  You can also find it  here  where you can download a PDF. It does a perfectly good job of dispatching the nonsense science used by Climate Change movement to strongarm their way into the various avenues of social influence both scientifically and politic

50 years of failed apocalyptic predictions

Thanks to Tony Heller, who first collected many of these news clips & posted them on: RealClimateScience . If you a hardcore refuter of doomsday predictions, you can click in THIS LINK and you can explore a collection of Tony's climate alarmism lies going back 80 YEARS!! I have put the more climate focused predictions that give more attention to recent fails here at THIS LINK The latest addition to the list of apocolyptic predictions is the Covid19 "plandemic" hype-job. I will cover it it properly on an ongoing basis and include it on my next list of failed predictions once the hysteria is over. Hindsight always has a way of introducing perspective into the equation. SUMMARY Modern doomsayers have been predicting climate and environmental disaster since the 1960s. They continue to do so today. None of the apocalyptic predictions with due dates as of today have come true. What follows is a collection of notably wild predictions from

Robust consensus for Global Cooling existed in the 60's and 70's, here is the evidence.

Thanks to and in reference to THIS ARTICLE by Kenneth Richard way back in 2016   Here are the papers    1.   Kukla, 1972      Climatic changes result from variables in planetary orbits which modulate solar energy emission and change seasonal and latitudinal distribution of heat received by the Earth. Small insolation changes are multiplied by the albedo effect of the winter snow fields of the Northern Hemisphere, by ocean-atmosphere feedbacks, and, probably, by the stratospheric ozone layer. The role of volcanic explosions and other aperiodic phenomena is secondary. The immediate climate response to insolation trends permits astronomic dating of Pleistocene events.  A new glacial insolation regime, expected to last 8000 years, began just recently. Mean global temperatures may eventually drop about 1 ° C in the next hundred years . A refinement of the Milankovitch theory in terms of the lunar orbit and more data on solar periodicities are needed for reliable long range predictions. 2

⏪ A stunning revision of the past which could be as unbelievable as any science fiction blockbuster (Part 1)

"What if the defining catastrophe of the  human part of world history has no observable equivalent occurrences today? Surely we would entirely leave it out of our picture?" According to Wikipedia, which represents the establishment view of most matters, the substance and starting point of our history is as follows: Quote "The  history of the world , in common parlance, is the   history of humanity   (or   human history ), as determined from   archaeology ,   anthropology ,   genetics ,   linguistics , and other disciplines; and, for periods since the   invention of writing , from   recorded history   and from   secondary sources   and studies. Humanity's written history was preceded by its  prehistory , beginning with the  Palaeolithic Era  ("Early Stone Age"), followed by the  Neolithic Era  ("New Stone Age"). The Neolithic saw the  Agricultural Revolution  begin, between 8000 and 5000  BCE , in the  Near East 's  Fertile Cres

Climate Science overtakes Cosmology with the worst predictive success rate in science

  Figure 1  Success of Cosmology: 4.6%  Climatology: 1.47% CLIMATOLOGY In the interests of fairness and full disclosure, it is not the entire climatology discipline on trial here, but the core of it which to some extent has been politically captured to form the basis of the hypothesis that CO2 produced by humans will produce a runaway greenhouse effect (But that CO2, the vast majority without humans will not).  There was a successful push to conflate the broad strokes field of the Environmental Sciences, which always  covered a number of  disciplines ( climatology being one, oceanography, atmospheric sciences, meteorology, and ecology) with the term " Climate Science" in an effort to make it less empirical  and more  political.  In some form or other, they now all hinge on policies shaped by presupposing the assertion that the human produced portion of CO2 is causing any warming measured last century and arguably the first couple of years of this century. It projects climate

"Spacetime" is pseudoscience

FOREWORD   This post is directed at those behind the public understanding of science,. That includes much of the science press and others who make the claims I'm criticizing.  So its all in the way its presented to the public and how the public ends up perceiving the message.  It's prudent to keep matters logically consistent and observe the correct place of a law and the place of a theory to explain a law rather than replace it. Handling things as such means "Spacetime" as a fabric is not by necessity pseudoscience and anyone has a right to propose anything within reason in this regard. My case is made to address the disingenuous representation of the principles associated with General Relativity by the consensus science establishment to the public. It's the public whose funding permits the Sci-fi establishment to expand on the key perversions of the standard model and obscene engineering projects, telescopes and probes which support it (thanks to an outstanding

Robust consensus for Global Cooling (Part 3)

 Part 3 out of 4 in what should end up being close to 300 papers from the 1960's and 70's (and a few interesting publications from before,... and hec, even perhaps 1 or 2 from the 80's themselves). This assortment was intended to demonstrate that the myth of just 7 papers existing pre 1980 reflecting the claimed robust support cooling had. The forums and dungeons of Social Media are rife with denisons of prevailing dogma in the sciences.  Some very basic established conventional wisdom has been forgotten. In its place the tailored schemings of tax exempt foundations and think tanks have found their way (basically unchallenged) into the arsenal of the powerful internationalist cabal of dynastic blue bloods and the puppet neoliberal political class their blue and white flag UN globalist structures have vetted. Many scientists see it as self evident that AGW cannot be a v alid hypothesis, as did the science community once as these pages illustrate. In fact it was a very preval