Socialism: Maybe not such a bad idea?

Ah, fair enough. I agree with you...I just think there ought to be a floor on poverty so that no-one has to suffer real deprivation...and the practical upshot of this is that the really well off are going to have to pay a lot in taxes.

For some reason I thought you were an American...

Here, helping out working people who don't make a living wage is "SOCIALISM!"...My state may be cutting the programs under which I get medications for asthma, the meds cost half of what I make retail, my mom's old trailer that I live in is getting dangerously in need of repair, and I am highly stressed about everything.

I do eat very nutritiously though.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What do you mean the presidency of the US even?

Also we are both generalizing here right? How is it that the layabouts from well- healed families benefit? I've personally known a few people like that and they were cut-off big time. There are even inheritance clauses where the filthy rich force their kids to 'do something', anything that's productive or make their own way. My personal opinion is that if a parent wants to use their own money to support a layabout child then its their money to do so if they wish, taxing them isn't going to change what they eventually are able to leave to their children. Unless you plan of course on confiscating homes, vehicles etc that they hand over to their own kids.

Even in nations with nice social welfare programs like Holland the rich still remain rich and they still hand down the wealth to their children. Go to China and you will find millionaires popping up in the economy:

'There’s around 960,000 millionaires in China, a land of 1.4 billion inhabitants. And while China is a central planned economy and pragmatically socialist, 55% of the country’s millionaires are making money the old fashioned way — they earned it in private business. Another 20% have entered the world of China millionaire stardom through the country’s hot real estate market, and another 15% or stock market gurus, Hurun said in the executive summary to its May 12 report. More surprisingly, 30% of China’s millionaires were women.'

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2...res-younger-than-us-millionaires-report-says/

And billionaires:

There are a total of 64 people in that bracket in mainland China, the magazine says in its annual list of the world's richest people.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8561433.stm

We're talking about scale here are we not? By all means tax them but it will not deprive them of their wealth status and privileges nor will it prevent their children from benefitting from that wealth anymore than you could prevent a butcher's child from having the best cuts at the dinner table. If you are arguing that the child doesn't deserve the best cuts just because his father is the butcher I would have to disagree. It would amount to a radical communism on par with a cultural revolution where you simply punish other's out of sense of entitlement and bitterness.

I'm all for a social welfare system that ensures people have a safety net protecting them from complete deprivation but that isn't the same as trying to fleece the wealthy of their riches. There's a difference.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

He's clearly referring to our previous President, who was a loafing imbecile from a well-heeled family, drank and drugged his way through the elite educational institutions his family connections bought him entry into, and then repeatedly failed upward for the remainder of his career - right up to the highest office in the land.

That's not hard work and dedication paying off. That's entitlement run rampant. Absent the wealth and family connections, that shmuck would have been begging for spare change at a bus station.

See above.

I have also known such, and further know that they are the exception, not the rule. The leisure class exists.

And that is exactly how a purely capitalist system rewards rich layabouts at the expense of hard-working poor.

It is if the tax is an estate tax. Then you directly take a slice of what assets they leave behind upon death, for the explicit purpose of limiting long-term wealth inequality and paying back into the social system that sustains everyone.

Right: estate tax.

Exactly. Socialism is hardly communism. The rich still get to be rich, and enjoy the perks. They just have to pay a bit more to keep everyone else at a productive, healthy level as well. Rather than, say, operating sweatshops or chattel slavery plantations.

Exactly - they have nothing in particular to fear from reasonable taxation. Contrast that to the poor and middle class, who have a great deal to fear from the de-funding of state programs essentially to their health and prosperity.

Typically, "butcher's cuts" are not "the best cuts," but rather those cuts which for whatever reason don't sell well, or aren't worth marketting. Those kids don't eat filet mignon or ribeye. Although in some places they do eat hanger steak, which is an excellent cut (but not widely appreciated in the USA, for some reason).

Why? What did that child do to earn a better cut of steak than the kid next door? Be born to a butcher? What you're talking about is entitlement, not deserts.

Indeed - so why are you tarring people who propose nothing more radical than responsible socialism with reasonably progressive taxation - leaving the rich essentially intact - as craven class warriors?

The rich fucks who refuse to pay their fair share into the society that enabled them to get rich, are the ones waging a vicious class war here.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

that is exactly what I mean by the wealth of your family predicting ones success. doesn't anyone honestly believe without is name and the fortune behind W would have done any of the the things he did.

 

Quad:

Well it wasn't clear to me. I don't blame his family for his presidency, I blame the voters.

No one is disputing that the leisure class exists. My argument is that they will always exist. Iceaura seems to have a vision where this will no longer be a reality

Quad: And that is exactly how a purely capitalist system rewards rich layabouts at the expense of hard-working poor.

Hardly. As I have pointed out, even the children of wealthy families in nations with a good social welfare system benefit from their families wealth. Are you arguing that if a parent is a high income earner their children should not use their wealth to advance their own offspring in any way shape and form? If so, how? Taxing the wealthy is not going to change this dynamic.

Quad: It is if the tax is an estate tax. Then you directly take a slice of what assets they leave behind upon death, for the explicit purpose of limiting long-term wealth inequality and paying back into the social system that sustains everyone.

Not if its in trust.

Quad: Estate tax

Not if its in trust. And even if it were not, you are not going to completely take away their assets. You want half of 40 million? Sure. They're still ahead.

Quad: Typically, "butcher's cuts" are not "the best cuts," but rather those cuts which for whatever reason don't sell well, or aren't worth marketting. Those kids don't eat filet mignon or ribeye. Although in some places they do eat hanger steak, which is an excellent cut (but not widely appreciated in the USA, for some reason).

Minutia. The analogy still holds and you know exactly what I mean. Unless of course you want to argue that butcher's do not have access to high quality meat.

Quad: Why? What did that child do to earn a better cut of steak than the kid next door? Be born to a butcher? What you're talking about is entitlement, not deserts.

They don't have to do anything. Part of the incentive to building wealth is to pass on the advantages to future generations. If a parent is very educated, buys lot's of books, fills their dinner table with artists and intellectuals, takes them to museums and trips around the world etc. Don't be surprised if their children are not going to have an advantage via exposure as opposed to the nice family who sit in front of the tv every night watching Full House. Wealth as well as education always has its privileges.

Quad: Indeed - so why are you tarring people who propose nothing more radical than responsible socialism with reasonably progressive taxation - leaving the rich essentially intact - as craven class warriors? The rich fucks who refuse to pay their fair share into the society that enabled them to get rich, are the ones waging a vicious class war here.

BULLSHIT. Go back and show me where I tarred anyone for responsible socialism and then go back and show me where I ever suggested I was against socialism. I have benefitted from social welfare programs in the form of health care. Prove your assertion or get lost. You OBVIOUSLY haven't even read through this thread.

 

I'm not seeing it. I don't see where he's gone any further than demanding that they pay their fair share, so that the working classes aren't being ground into dirt.

And this fact definitively refutes any implication that those advocating a good, strong social welfare system are class warriors that seek to eradicate the wealthy.

Of course not. Why would you even suggest something so ridiculous and inconsistent with everything I've written?

I'm arguing that the state should force them to use a portion of their wealth to help advance everyone else's offspring. You know: the people that their kids are going to have to share the country with?

In point of fact, it is possible to simply tax the wealthy out of existence, thereby eliminating that dynamic entirely. But nobody here is proposing anything like that.

So pass some comparable taxes covering trusts. This is just an accounting detail.

Well, nobody here proposes doing so. But it could be done.

Exactly - they can still enjoy the benefits of being rich, while also keeping the working classes' heads above water.

What they have is a direct incentive to sell the high quality meat to the highest bidder, and feed the leftovers that nobody wants to buy to their families. In some cases those leftovers are high quality cuts. In others, they are not. A "butcher's cut" is a synonym for a cut of meat that is unpopular, for whatever reason. In the USA, it's actually almost synonymous with a hanger steak - which is actually a highly prized cut elsewhere in the world. But not one that Americans would be jealous of - they typically won't even know what it is.

Of course. But that's not the same thing as said future generations earning said wealth, now is it? They don't personally do anything to "deserve" that, just happen to be lucky enough to be born entitled to it.

Nobody is disputing that. What is contended is that wealth, as well as education, confers responsibility as well as privilege.

You seem to be having a lot of problems understanding what others are saying, and what you are saying about others, today.

 

Quad: I'm not seeing it. I don't see where he's gone any further than demanding that they pay their fair share, so that the working classes aren't being ground into dirt.

Well if that's the case then why is he fighting the notion that you cannot completely fleece the wealthy to the point where they no longer benefit from their wealth. There is talk of creating an equal playing field. My point is there is no such thing as an equal playing field. All you can do is ensure that the poor have their basic necessities met. And as I have pointed out the rich are usually open to doing such as long as they can still maintain their wealth. Its a matter of scale.

Quad: And this fact definitively refutes any implication that those advocating a good, strong social welfare system are class warriors that seek to eradicate the wealthy.

Then why do I have to point it out?

Quad: I'm arguing that the state should force them to use a portion of their wealth to help advance everyone else's offspring. You know: the people that their kids are going to have to share the country with?

You do realize that this is what most in this thread are advocating don't you?

Quad: In point of fact, it is possible to simply tax the wealthy out of existence, thereby eliminating that dynamic entirely. But nobody here is proposing anything like that.

And then you would no longer have anyone to tax. But seriously, you need to go back and read exactly what it is being argued here. Iceaura and I disagree on how much wealth you grab from the wealthy without creating disincentive. I have before given him the example of Holland vs Belgium. When Holland started a new tax system that hit the wealthy very hard they simply moved over to Belgium where the tax system was more inviting. Holland lost a lot of its top tier to that and had to re-think their approach. As you know both Holland and Belgium have good social welfare programs, so it was a matter of scale.

Quad: Exactly - they can still enjoy the benefits of being rich, while also keeping the working classes' heads above water.

Which is my point.

Quad: Of course. But that's not the same thing as said future generations earning said wealth, now is it?

Who said it was? If you send your kids to the best schools and use influence to get them into a good working position then they may very well earn the same or more or maybe not. But the point is that the wealthy will always try and pass on the advantages to their children and I have no problem with that. As the chinese understand of wealth or lack thereof and inheritance 'From rice paddy to rice paddy in three generations'

Quad: What is contended is that wealth, as well as education, confers responsibility as well as privilege.

Why are you disputing that I think any different?

Quad: You seem to be having a lot of problems understanding what others are saying, and what you are saying about others, today.

Ah. No. It seem to me you and two others are having problems understanding what it is I am saying.

 

@Quad

In addition to what I said above. There are complaints in the thread that the rich and their offspring have advantages as if its these advantages that is keeping them poor, the focus is on the rich as if they are the problem. I'm saying the rich are not the problem in the US but corporate america, that is what you need to attack not individual wealthy folk which you will never rid yourselves of. The US doesn't have a social welfare system for a variety of reasons but the present problems americans are finding themselves in has to do with the merger between corporate america, wall street and washington not the fact that there are people who live in nice houses passing on their wealth to their children. in terms of washington its industry that sets the debate, owns the politicians and therefore sets the agenda

 

Is he?

Sure there is. Not sure that anybody is really advocating that, but equal opportunity is a real thing, approximately achievable in the real world.

What counts as "basic necessities?" Proper education, access to healthcare, job opportunities?

What about the middle class - isn't some measure of upward mobility a basic necessity of a stable, healthy democracy?

So those rich that depend on the deprivation of the poor to maintain their wealth - they need to be wiped out, then? What is the definition of "necessities" that these wealthy people are willing to support? Because I see a lot of wealthy Americans pushing extreme libertarian positions that would wipe out health care, food assistance, education, job security and retirement for the poor (and much of the middle class).

Frankly it sounds as if you are describing things as they were in the 1960's or so. It's been 30 years of "Fuck You, Got Mine" now.

You don't. In fact, I'm puzzled that you keep harping on about it. Who's arguing against such?

Yes. What I can't figure is why you keep insisting that others are advocating something else.

Well, nobody wealthy to tax, anyway. But then, we haven't even gotten to corporations yet.

You did, explicitly. That's what set off the exchange in question. Go and read what you posted.

Because you're hung-up on this strawman argument about the need to destroy privilege, rather than demand the associated responsibility.

The problem appears to be that whatever it is that you think you are saying, is not what you are actually saying.

 

High values of wealth and income inequality are a serious systemic problem for any society that aims to be a stable, productive democracy. We figured this out back in the 1930's, and that's why we instituted a progressive income tax and social welfare system. The rich have spent the intervening decades working tirelessly to turn all of that back, and return to the Gilded Age. For the past 30 years, they've been increasingly successful - we have Congressmen openly exploiting an economic crisis to demand that we dismantle Social Security and Medicare. That's the political setting, now: open, unapologetic attack on any and all welfare programs, coupled with calls for yet more tax cuts on the rich. We're nowhere near some technical argument about exactly how much to spend.

Which is to say that if we are to get to the set-up you claim to favor, the political influence (if not the actual existence) of the very wealthy needs to be very, very strongly curtailed.

The USA has had a social welfare system for generations. You may have heard of The New Deal? What exactly are Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, unemployment benefits, public education, etc., if not a social welfare system? The USA is a welfare state, and has been for a long time.

False dichotomy. The rich people with lots of wealth, are to be found in corporate America, wall street and washington. They aren't some kind of landed aristocracy or whatever.

 

Quad: Is he?

Obviously he is.

Quad: What counts as "basic necessities?" Proper education, access to healthcare, job opportunities? What about the middle class - isn't some measure of upward mobility a basic necessity of a stable, healthy democracy?

Health care, education and housing. Job opportunities are not going to be solved by taxing the rich, that's an entirely different topic all together having to do with producing goods and services as opposed to simply consuming them. What do you mean by 'upward mobility'? If you mean that every generation has to do better than the one before, I don't think you can ensure that nor is that the point of basic necessities. Having a system like Denmark or Sweden for example where no one starves and no one goes homeless (its actually illegal), and no one pays for medical care or their higher education except through their taxes is to what I'm referring.

Quad: So those rich that depend on the deprivation of the poor to maintain their wealth - they need to be wiped out, then? What is the definition of "necessities" that these wealthy people are willing to support? Because I see a lot of wealthy Americans pushing extreme libertarian positions that would wipe out health care, food assistance, education, job security and retirement for the poor (and much of the middle class). Frankly it sounds as if you are describing things as they were in the 1960's or so. It's been 30 years of "Fuck You, Got Mine" now.

You mean if someone opens a factory and hires workers and provides goods and services to society is 'depriving the poor'? Nope I disagree with that. I answered above what these necessities are. The fact that you see a lot of wealthy libertarians americans advocating pushing extreme libertarianism is besides the point. They are neither wealthy because they are libertarian and being libertarian is not dependent on wealth. You could find just as many wealthy people who say they would be happy to pay more than they currently are. You haven't described anything I believe frankly. I was born and raised in Europe and have also lived a long time in the States and I am not a fan of the way you do things in this country.

Quad: Who's arguing against such?

I don't know Quad, you're the one who's come into this debate as if you read my posts and understand what I am advocating. The burden is on you.

Quad: What I can't figure is why you keep insisting that others are advocating something else.

Where did I insist other's were advocating something else? It is Iceaura who is saying that. Go and find the post which indicates I am advocating something else. LOL! Especially the one where 'I insist'

Quad: You did, explicitly. That's what set off the exchange in question. Go and read what you posted.

No you post what I posted in the context it was posted. You are the one saying I am advocating something other than a strong social welfare program. The burden of proof is on you.

Quad: Because you're hung-up on this strawman argument about the need to destroy privilege, rather than demand the associated responsibility.

No that's just your spin. Its other's who are arguing about destroying privilege as if there was something wrong with privilege or as if privilege is the reason why the poor are poor. I'm advocating attacking corporate america which controls public policy. No one here has said the wealthy shouldn't be taxed its simply a matter of at what scale do you do so without having them run for the hills. I mean the public does want to benefit from their revenue no?

Quad: The problem appears to be that whatever it is that you think you are saying, is not what you are actually saying.

The problem is that you don't know what I'm saying which is obvious from the stupid questions which only tells me you don't read posts. You are assuming you know what's I'm saying. Or maybe you have an ax to grind on behalf of your mates. Who knows. Whatever.

 

Yes and its corporate americas writing of policy, deregulating the financial system which has rendered the new deal dead. Or as Hedges pointed out in 2008: "The passing of the $850-billion bailout pulled the plug on the New Deal. The Great Society is now gasping for air, mortally wounded, coughing up blood. It will not recover. It was murdered by the Democratic Party." http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081006_dennis_kucinich_on_the_democrats_bailout_betrayal/

Hedges by the way is also a socialist.

But don't worry Quad he also blames Republicans. Of course this was happening before 2008 its just that people see the bailouts as the nail on the coffin.

Its not a false dichotomy. When you don't name corporate america you are not naming the massive, faceless structure which is the cause of the disenfranchisement. Landed aristocracy? Funny how social welfare nations do have landed aristocracy as well as monarchies. Imagine that.

Here's his recent article which I think is interesting:

By Chris Hedges

The moral philosopher Cornel West, if Barack Obama’s ascent to power was a morality play, would be the voice of conscience. Rahm Emanuel, a cynical product of the Chicago political machine, would be Satan. Emanuel in the first scene of the play would dangle power, privilege, fame and money before Obama. West would warn Obama that the quality of a life is defined by its moral commitment, that his legacy will be determined by his willingness to defy the cruel assault by the corporate state and the financial elite against the poor and working men and women, and that justice must never be sacrificed on the altar of power.

Perhaps there was never much of a struggle in Obama’s heart. Perhaps West only provided a moral veneer. Perhaps the dark heart of Emanuel was always the dark heart of Obama. Only Obama knows. But we know how the play ends. West is banished like honest Kent in “King Lear.” Emanuel and immoral mediocrities from Lawrence Summers to Timothy Geithner to Robert Gates—think of Goneril and Regan in the Shakespearean tragedy—take power. We lose. And Obama becomes an obedient servant of the corporate elite in exchange for the hollow trappings of authority...

http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_obama_deception_why_cornel_west_went_ballistic_20110516/

 

Yep...and I'm close to 38...basically, things have just kept sucking worse all my life. My family had just bought a house in the area when the steel industry closed and moved wholesale to Japan. We never really recovered, or at least got back to that level of wealth.

 

I suppose you are correct that no one here is proposing, or arguing for, such; but honestly, I am not averse to this--to put it mildly. I just leave the rational argumentation for such to those more patient and capable, and instead try to appeal to base emotions (and employ more direct actions on my own time).

Honestly, for me the most profound instance of culture shock in my lifetime was simply going to college--and this is coming from a person who has experienced prolonged bouts of homelessness (owing largely to stupid fucks, i.e. "doctors," who dx'ed and treated my epilepsy as schizophrenia--a problem finally resolved by the Canadian health care system) and who has spent considerable time in impoverished developing countries (and who considers Lonely Planet Shoestring Guides to be guides for rich people--if you don't know how to get half-way 'round the planet with only a couple hundred bucks in your pocket, then don't do it).

I was the perfect combination of "poor" and "smart" that a lot of private universities like to have around for statistical purposes, I suppose. So I got paid extremely well to attend--and it would have been impossible (well, ok, just extremely difficult) for me to attend otherwise. Without going into details, it quickly become apparent that private unis are only (ok, mostly) for the filthy rich. There are quite a few, perhaps most, at which at which over 90 percent receive no financial aid--wtf?! So (in present day dollars) these folks are shelling out around 40 thousand bucks, per annum, for tuition alone? Sadly, it would seem that state universities are fast becoming available only to the rich, as well. (And sure, the rich-poor ratio changes a bit with graduate school, but only because they've managed to weed out some of those who are rich, but also dumber than fuck--unless they're presidential material, of course.)

Conditional trusts--go to school and don't be a fucking dumbass--are slightly more acceptable to me, I guess; but without some radical redistribution (of both unearned and allegedly "earned" (rrriiiigggghhht) wealth), education will remain virtually inaccessible to the majority, along with a few other basic necessities.

 

how many people can one job employ?

 

How many Pj's does it take to screw in a light bulb?

 

This thread is anarchistic in that people get together, argue, call each other names and come to a consensus, or not. (Except we never do anything.) Anarcho Union should check out "The Clam Shell alliance" in order to strengthen his arguments.

Anarchism is a tool, like all "isms". It is used when things become so dangerous in a society that it is unwise to have a leader. Any system is only as good as its people and a person is just as apt to be raped by a Socialist or a capitalist.

The Socialistic aspects of our Government don't work because Social Services ensnares
its "clients" in various wellfare webs. In order to extricate themselves "clients" must pay back usurious sums. The real purpose of social wellfare is to grow social wellfare at the expense of their "clients" and the taxpayer.

The Capitalistic aspects of our Country don't work because the banks have sent our funds to China and India instead of investing them here. Then too, in 1913, our Government, in its infinite wisdom, privatised "The Federal Reserve Bank". So our money flows out faster than you can say "Eva Peron."

Socially we need a public works project large enough to guarrantee a living wage to all.
That is the basis of our economy, not gold or silver or dollars. Then ambitious folks will be able to sell their stuff to these workers.

This can be paid for by renationalizing "The Fed".

Banking and Social Service Moguls will not like these things, but they have no loyalty to us. I hope everyone has read "Charlie Reese's final column". It's on Google.

Also, wealth is only a measure of success to a point and then it becomes a responsibility.

Parmalee (#92) These social programs are not accepted by the poor because they do not want to be subjugated. They are not confused, Lucysnow (#93), read the fine print.

 

And whose fault was that?
You seem to be saying that Bush or those like him only get into office because they're rich. Certainly, that will help get them into the public eye.
In the end, however, it's up to you who gets voted in. It's the American people who didn't know enough to see what was in front of their faces.
How is socialism going to prevent that situation from occurring? It's an economic system, not an intelligence enhancement.

Certainly, being from a privileged background will help enlist the support of other rich people - even those who might abhor who he was and where he came from, and how his family helped make more of him than he was. Because, you see, the alternative is... well, you. You want to solve the problem by taking enough money off all of them so some of them can't do that.

For them - Better the devil. You know?

One might go so far as to say it's those like you who contribute to the situation being even less likely to be resolved than it is now. Class war, you say. Your problem is that you seem to be shooting non-combatants.
Hearts and minds, right?

Yes, he probably would. Then you lot would have voted in the next dumb bastard with charisma.
Again, the disease lies not with an economic system, any more than the cure lies with its alternative.

And so what if they do?
Is this really an indictment on the wealthy, or is it an indictment on those who feel jealous of them?

It's not as if those rich layabouts don't contribute. They consume, in most cases quite robustly. All you have to do is figure out a way to take advantage of that. Most people do, in the end. Other than the completely incompetent.

I adore rich layabouts. They represent the best that life has to offer, regardless of whether some of them don't appear to deserve or take advantage of it. For every Paris Hilton out there, there is someone else living life to the full without taking advantage. For every extreme, there is someone in the middle, not this, and not that.
I wish I were one of them. I'm not. That does not lead me to feel I should take from them and offer little in return.

The answer is not in dictating how someone else decides to live their own life. It's in how you live yours. One of the most important lessons you will ever learn is not to worry about what anyone else has.

Do you have enough? Or are you constantly coveting what they have?
Now I'm assuming here that you live somewhere with at least a modicum of wealth. You have a computer; you're on the internet. From this, one would assume you have enough to eat, something to wear, and a roof over your head. You have the luxury of time, or you would not be here on this forum.
Whats your problem, exactly?

Actually, all you're probably going to do is induce those rich to figure out how they can get around being forced to pay up for someone they don't give a rat's arse about.
Hospitals, roads, infrastructure in general... those things, you'd probably find most rich people aren't really worried about being taxed for. Welfare, though? That's a completely different kettle of fish. Not a terribly good eating fish, either. Serving pilchards and calling it tuna.

If you're going to implement socialism, then you need to give those rich people a way to determine where their tax dollars go. You might find you get more support. You might even find you wouldn't need a socialist system at all. Although that point might be open to debate. People are people.

You tend to see the rich in terms of suited fat guys smoking cigars and running sweatshops. Don't deny it; you're used the terminology. They, in their turn, see you as a layabout loser who doesn't have what it takes to make it.
You're not going to earn respect by introducing laws to make them pay for you.

Its not about fear. It's more about indignation. The problem you have is coming to terms with everyone on what might be deemed "reasonable".

Is it an economic system that is going to fix that, or a fundamental shift in thought patterns from the entire populace?

Right.
It isn't about having meat to live on, is it. It's about what meat you get to live on.

There's that word again. Entitlement.
What you're basically saying here is that your feeling of entitlement trumps his.
Your kids are more important than his. Because you're not really talking about the kids next door, are you. Oh, no. You're talking about you.

Craven what now?
Damn, boy. They could make a fine propaganda poster from the mental image I just had of you.

And the enemy is you.
Taken from a different perspective, socialists and communists are waging a class war too. All depends on what side of the fence you're on.

Me, personally? I'm just eking out a living. Wouldn't call myself "poor", because I'm sitting here at this computer typing this in on my internet connection. Neither am I going out to buy a home anytime soon, nor even a late model car. Don't particularly care about those things, other than to think to myself once in a while it might be nice. All in all, I've got it pretty damn good. I've got exactly what I've cared enough about to earn.

But when it comes to blatant theft, I'm crossing the floor. One thief is the same as another, and to hell with calling it a system of social justice.

I'm going to quote me, for kicks.

It probably needs some TLC; but those who know me know what I mean.



Moral integrity. It does appear that the phrase can be used to defend just about any viewpoint one cares to name.

 

Marquis,

Yes, it is our duty to elect proper representatives. But everyone presented to us by political parties is bought. Our choice is between interest groups, not individuals. I venture that, in order to be a candidate, one must be in a position to be black mailed.

Now, it is not the "rich" who are the problem. They are controlled and protected, like queen bees, by clerks. The corporations have been socialized, just like the government has been, to the point where there are very few people willing and able to make an independant decission, which flies in the face of profit, because it is the right thing to do.

We are all to blame for this mess. If you own stock, do you know who any of the board members are? Do you know their policies? Have you tried to influence them? Have you ever bought a share of stock, in order to be a "gadfly"?

You can do these things and they must listen to you. But if you write to a politician he wll thank you for your "help", ask you to send money and ignore your input. The Government has no financial interest in listening to your opinions; again, government does what is best for government. That is why Capitalism is superior to Socialism.