Inside the Mind of a Socialists

For the past 2 weeks I have been going back and forth with a Socialist from across the pond. Until now I had found all Socialist so disagreeable it was impossible to be even polite to them much less nice. However this chap from jolly old England has repeatedly disagreed while managing to be agreeable. However, since he provided me with a plethora of information I thought I would convert into a hub entitled inside the mind of a Socialist. Until now I thought they all just went on feelings but this guy actually believes in the basic concepts of Socialism, regardless how destructive they may be to society in general.

As expected we disagreed from the outset on my original premise; he stating “one could take examples of dreadful capitalists to condemn capitalism.” To that I rebutted, true there are some bad Capitalist but I challenge you to provide one good Socialist Leader of a Regime throughout history. They all have simply repressed the people; tortured and killed them in most instances while driving their respective countries into bankruptcy or war.

Next he seized upon that typical liberal position, without government a bright kid from a poor family would never get a good education; given the overt Racism that is inherent within any Capitalistic Society and all that; give me a break! My contention is that same poor kid can acquire the good education under Capitalism but the end result is radically different; under Capitalism he can apply the principles learned and move from his current poor status up into the middle class. Under Socialism there is no upward movement, everyone settles into mediocrity; the middle class moves down and the poor stay poor!

Here we go; he had to address healthcare as he ask; “Is a poor sick person more likely or less likely to get good health care in a socialist society or a capitalist society? To that I rebutted the Health Care legislation passed by this Socialist Regime was not intended to address this problem; its’ goal was to effect the governmental takeover of some 16% of our economy; pure and simple. Those that needed health care had means at their disposal through which to get it. What this Regime effectively did was attempt to wreck the greatest health care system in the world. I went on to showcase the British Health Care System by quoting Sir Winston Churchill; “the inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of the blessings; the inherent blessing of socialism is the equal sharing of the misery! In other words my point was under the British Socialist system all serious procedures are possible only after waiting extended periods of time if ever.

Not ready to leave the Health Care issue I continued by pointing out the primary culprit wasn’t addressed with this Obamination; tort reform. I pointed out to my Socialist pal that the reason cost have skyrocketed is because health care providers are forced to perform unnecessary procedures in order to protect them from malpractice suits plus the malpractice insurance they are forced to carry in and of itself escalates the cost of their services. The reason Tort Reform wasn’t addressed in this Obamination is plain and simple; trial lawyers are a very large constituency of the Liberal Democrats!

Health Care was definitely the Monolithic issue for this jolly good chap as the above mentioned salvos did not move the topic. He retorted with what has been one of the main Liberal Left Democratic talking points; they must have forwarded a copy of their playbook to him across the pond. He accused the Republicans of providing no intelligent alternative; just the waving of birth certificates and taking guns to political meetings; he’s definitely been watching CNN! He wasn’t aware of January, 2010 meeting during which His Lordship paid a visit to the House of Commons supposedly to listen to Republican ideas. I pointed out His Lordship quickly made it clear he was there to lecture them and not to give audience to their petty grievances. King Obama repeatedly defended his policies and accused the Commoners of distorting his positions for political gain. He was especially critical of their efforts to derail his attempt to take over the Health Care of the Kingdom. Instead of recognizing his magnificent Benevolence in desiring to cover every subject in the kingdom these bumpkins were fretting over the insignificant truth that in doing so the King would gain control of over 16% of the kingdom’s economy. With his royal nose in the air the King lashed out saying; "You'd think this was some Bolshevik plot!" Well, except for the fact his henchmen Pelosi and Reid were sitting astride Asses; their own, instead of horses that are exactly what it was!

My new found friend then posed his most preposterous argument thus far as he stated: “actually the Number 1 weapon of the Left is calm reasoned argument.” Can you believe he actually believs that? I rebutted with; “you aware the Left; NPR just fired Juan Williams.” Mr. Williams represented calm reasoned argument yet when that calm reasoned argument went against the established message of the left, i.e. Mr. Williams momentarily strayed off the reservation. He was fired!

An honest debate with any Socialist worth his weight in Karl Marx Manifestos couldn’t possibly progress without delving into the Holy Grail of Socialism, Labor Unions. I put forth the issue while rebutting another point of contention. I wrote, “I will concede you part of your opening point; most of the regulation has come about because capitalists have behaved badly. Labor Unions are an excellent example of that premise. However that’s where we part paths. Labor Unions have successfully succeeded in running most of the steel, rubber and auto and all of the textile industry out of this country. The collapse of what was left of the auto industry was only delayed when this Socialist Regime stepped in and saved the UAW at the expense of the investors. Thus the Unions that bankrupted the auto industry were saved and allowed to continue in their wasteful ways while the millions of investors; pension plans and other 401K investors received pennies on the dollar. That my friend is what happens with unbridled Socialism!”

He countered by blaming management; sound familiar? Here’s what he said, “the problem with trade unions is that they are essentially reactive. The reason the car industry is in deep difficulty is that the management took far too long to understand why they were losing out to the Japanese, to switch to cheap "economy" cars, and to cut costs away from the production line. Who else would think to go to Washington with begging bowls using three company jets? No, no a thousand times no; the problem with trade unions is they destroy companies. The reason the car industry is in deep difficulty is not that the management took far too long to understand why they were losing out to the Japanese, it is because it took way too long to realize they could not continue to give in to outrageous union demands and as far as cheap "economy" cars go, if America had wanted them they would have built them. The car companies built what Americans wanted to drive. You see my friend the Global warming left can’t force us to drive around in tiny little match boxes in order to support their myth!

His heart continued to bleed as he put forth yet another rebuttal; most industrialists who have spent time talking to their unions get agreement. If Management wants to keep their private jets but decrease the hourly rate on the production line, of course they will have problems. Herein lies the basic difference between a Capitalist and a Socialists; Capitalism is the system through which people may progress from poor to rich; no one is locked into any social status by birth. Within this system corporations are designed to make a profit. What Socialists can’t comprehend is the concept corporations are not controlled by any one person; they are dependent on shareholders who invest in the corporations in order to grow their own personal retirement accounts. If the corporations don’t earn the investors the proper rate of return on their investments the investors will go elsewhere and the corporations will have no money to invest and grow; they will die on the vine. The cycle is self perpetuating and dependent upon PROFITS in order to succeed; Corporations don’t exist in order to provide jobs for people. Look at Greece and Italy today as a prime example of the ultimate result of Socialism.

So my friends, my on going debate with a self proclaimed Socialist provided a rare glimpse inside the mind of our present day protagonists; they actually believe this stuff and will stop at nothing to replace our Capitalistic system with what they see as a more equitable system. I leave you with a quote from one of our founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson who said; “A government big enough to give you everything you want is strong enough to take everything you have!”

125 comments

breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

Brilliant hub, Patriot. I think of it this way. Socialists just want to be hand fed from the cradle to the grave. Why work hard or think outside the box. It's all too scary and unpredictable. Let the smart guys at the top take care of everything. Voted up. Keep talking to this guy because it is fascinating.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Pop

Good luck with the surgery!


eovery profile image

eovery 6 years ago from MIddle of the Boondocks of Iowa

I didn't know socialist had minds. I thought they were robots following strict orders.

Keep on hubbing!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

eovery

The one I hooked up with actually had a mind and ideas; even though they were misguided.

Thanks for visiting!


rachellrobinson profile image

rachellrobinson 6 years ago from Southwest Missouri

I liked this Hub a lot. It really went into what the Socialist want. Thank you.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks rachell

It is frightening when you realize people actually think like this!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Hi! I think you are discussing the conversations we have been having. I would like to correct one misquote, I did not say a bright student would be held back by racism. If you look, I have barely mentioned race except to say that it is incorrect to brand opponents of Obama as racists. Whoever was President, they would object to the Obama led platform.

Life as a socialist is tough enough without being misquoted, too!

I do not have time to write Socialism 101 just now, but I have reserved the hub name in hopes that I will have time eventually.

I enjoy conversations with intelligent people on the right, including you. It is interesting to see what your concerns are. In some cases your concerns are justified and in some they are misdirected.

There are bright people and good arguments on both sides, and it is important to lift the level of conversation from the playground insult level to which it so often descends.

Keep the flag flying!


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Thanks Charles

Sorry for the misquote; it actually wasn't meant as a quote from or by you but as an aside to your quote; you know like here we go again with that racist crap.

Good luck on your Socialism 101 hub!


Jeremey profile image

Jeremey 6 years ago from Arizona

when is someone gonna point out something we haven't heard before! Good hub, good points, same ole, same ole' though, I want new ideas, possible solutions not all this he;s wr0ng I'm right we all keep regurgitating.


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Jeremy

The problem is the choice isn’t between new and old; there is nothing new about Socialism or Capitalism but apparently those in this country that voted for Obama and the Democrats are ignorant of history and the destruction and death caused by other Socialists Regimes over the course of history.

Plain and simple when left alone Capitalism works but when over regulated and attempts are made to make it more fair to all people such as was the case in the housing market collapse; people were given mortgages they couldn’t possibly afford because the Socialists (also known as Democrats) believed everyone deserved a home whether they could afford it or not then Capitalism appears to fail when in actuality the Socialists orchestrated its failure!


pcoach 6 years ago

Great hub PP! I love how you put things to paper (or plastic-keyboard get it?). Paper or plastic? Oh, I just cracked myself up again.

Very true issues, but very entertaining. Hope you continue to report your findings from your "courtship with Charles the Socialist". It's enlightening.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Here is something for you folks to think on.

In the UK we have a "made in the USA" recession. As a result economic activity has reduced, and we have lots of unemployed construction workers.

We have roads and schools that need repair and / or upgrading. We need more housing.

If the unemployed construction workers were given building work to do, they would no longer be claiming benefits. And they would be paying taxes and national insurance.

For the relatively small difference in public expenditure they would be building capital assets for our society.

The "Right" say we cannot afford this expenditure . It seems to me that having people sitting at home doing nothing is just waste. Putting them to work makes sense.

If we wait until the Right says we can afford this expenditure the opportunity will be lost.

If I am a socialist I must be wrong, so how am I wrong?


rachellrobinson profile image

rachellrobinson 6 years ago from Southwest Missouri

@Charles: I am trying to figure out how it's America's fault that the UK is in a recession. Maybe it's just me, but I am not connecting the dots as it were.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

pcoach

Charles is indeed the most pleasant Socialist I’ve ever hooked up with; totally and completely wrong s all Socialists are but pleasant!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

Correcto-Mundo this recession was the end result of Socialist; known in this country as Democrats; tinkering with Capitalism; you know make it more fair; so they enticed banks to lend money to poor people who couldn’t afford the mortgages associated with the loans. How, pray tell did they accomplish this; there are two federal entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which lowered their requirements to the private lenders so in return the private lenders would lower their requirements and shazaaaaaaaaaammmmmmmm poor people could now afford mortgages two or three times what they could before! See Charles the good intentions of Socialism always end up in destroying the hopes and dreams of its subjects!

Ever heard of the WPA, FDR’s social program to put people back to work? Sorry Charles but when you pay people to work that does not grow the economic pie all you do is what Socialist love; spread the wealth around. The economic pie doesn’t grow but it gets sliced up into smaller pieces so everyone gets a smaller slice. Also how do you pay for all the materials needed to repair the roads, schools, etc; you either print more money which is inflationary or you raise taxes on an already suffering population. The thing to do is release the entrepreneurial spirit of the people and they will figure out a way to create real jobs that produce a product the country wants and needs.

As for people sitting at home doing nothing, the answer to that is simple; quit paying them to sit home. As long as you continue to extend unemployment benefits people have no incentive to look for work in earnest!

You answered your own question; “If I am a socialist I must be wrong, so how am I wrong?” You are wrong because you are Socialists!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

rachell

Read my first paragraph in my answer to Charles and it will answer your question to him!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

The capitalists who made money out of selling mortgages they knew people could not afford and the capitalists who resold the securitised packages and the capitalists who invested other peoples money in junk securities are blameless then?

And you would rather pay people to sit at home doing nothing than put them to work and get some value out of them?

Seems odd to me!


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

The capitalists who made money out of selling mortgages they knew people could not afford and the capitalists who resold the securities packages and the capitalists who invested other people’s money in junk securities are not blameless. But and this is a very big BUT, almost a BUTT; THE Socialist that tinkered with the Capitalist System in order to make it MORE FAIR started the entire process which ended in the housing market collapse. It was like a Giant Juggernaut rolling out of control which was initially pushed down the hill by modern day Karl Marx Disciples attempting to redistribute the wealth in their own way. To expect Capitalist not to make money off a system flawed by Socialist Tinkering with it would be like a hungry lion refusing to eat a lamb tied to a stake in front of it because the lamb had no chance of escape; Capitalist are programmed to make money; that’s how our system works and it works fine when left alone but can indeed be skewed by Do Gooder Socialists and when that happens the end result is not pretty.

As for your second point; “would I rather pay people to sit at home doing nothing than put them to work and get some value out of them?” No, 13 weeks is what our original unemployment was set up on; out of work people had 13 weeks in which to find a job; there are jobs available which can be obtained if a person is willing to work. To extend payments to people beyond 13 weeks is the root of our current unemployment problem; people may not be able to find a job doing what they were doing or paying them what they were making but there is work available. They will not avail themselves of that work if you continue to pay them to sit home and do nothing as you state!


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

Socialism equals stagnation equals failure.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

In the UK the rules are that provided you are genuinely seeking work your benefit continues indefinitely.

Given that these projects are not "makework", but are genuinely needed and would be built sometime in the next 10 years anyway, the materials costs will be incurred anyway. We are already paying out the benefits and we are losing the tax and national insurance these workers would pay if they were working.

For a little extra money we would create capital assets worth more than the inputs. So why not do it?


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

You are waaaaaaaaaay too bright to fall for that one; “you are genuinely seeking work your benefit continues indefinitely.” Surely you are not that naive; I don’t mean to call you names but Come on man! There are professional Food Stampers who have figured out the system and have no intention of ever finding a job in this country and I’m sure they exist in your country as well. The fact is handouts make sorry people out of good people. I’m sure you’ve heard; “Give a man a fish he eats for a day but teach a man to fish he eats for life.” Well we’ve given enough fish away over here; it’s time to teach them to fish the hard way!

Sorry but these projects are just that, "make-work", if the economy can’t support them then let them wait to be built when the money is available to build them. Let those on the government doll find legitimate jobs; you know those that are not paid for with taxes extorted from working people!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Two seperate issues. The projects are not "makework" because they are needed. If they will be done when we can afford them , why not do them now for less cost?

Your second issue is about the people who abuse the benefits system. I agree. For people who can work I would support a "must work" approach where they report to a location at 8am and are assigned work to do. "Don't work don't eat" is OK by me - but is that too tyrannical for you?


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

I knew I liked you; I’ll take your second point first. I agree. For people who can work I would support a "must work" approach where they report to a location at 8am and are assigned work to do. "Don't work don't eat" is OK by me! I love it; are you sure you’re not coming over to our side; certainly not too tyrannical for me!

I beg to differ on your first point; if the government has to print money in order to pay for these projects then they are "make-work"; if they are so sorely needed figure out a way to pay for them without taxing people more; I suggest you use the money you’ll save with your first idea or better still; use the people that show up at 8am for work for the projects. But if you do that, you’ll never get them built because those people are habitual freeloaders and will never show up for work; to them it is (work that is) the dirtiest of all 4 letter words


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

They don't show up they do not get paid. The Right are always saying we socialists are both bleeding hearts and potential tyrants. Free loaders are not wanted in a socialist society, but when a socialist society does something about its freeloaders you Republicans turn into bleeding hearts.

Of course. our definitions of freeloader might be different.

We are gradually finding points of agreement, but we both have to work for it.

If you were designing a methodology for savings and investment in a free society, would you follow the model of Wall Street and the City of London? Casino capitalism brought our economies down, but the worst culprits got rich. It is the poor and middle class who are paying the price of the capitalist casino culture.

I would suggest that invrestments sold less than a year after purchase attract a penalty tax. This would force the investment organisers to avoid speculationn and concentrate on investment.

What are your thoughts?


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

We are actually in agreement with most of the principles you put forth here; it’s the application of these principles where we part ways. You Socialist; in our country, known as Democrats, can’t seem to bring themselves to the point of applying the necessary requirements on their constituents, the allegedly poor and downtrodden. Let’s examine your points one by one.

You said; “they don't show up they do not get paid.” I couldn’t be in agreement more. In this country the Republicans have been pushing for some form or “Workfare” for decades; it is summarily rejected before it approaches the floor of either chamber. Those that dare suggest such a principle are branded in the media as Barbaric, mean spirited and you guessed it RACISTS! You see there are those that get elected to office and remain in office by sustaining the welfare class which was created by their predecessors decades ago. These Democrats do not want this large mass of people to move from this dependent state because their dependence on government keeps them in power!

Next, “free loaders are not wanted in a socialist society.” That is true but only after Socialism has been firmly entrenched as the governing principle and all incentive has been eradicated from the population. Case in point Hitler did not rise to power by letting the people know he was going to exterminate 6,000,000 Jews. No he promised them reform; sound familiar? The trains would run on time was just one insignificant premise he threw out there in order to suggest to the population their lives would be better down to the means through which they traveled to and fro. But then the ugly truth sets in; Socialism does not make everyone’s lives better; it stifles initiative and in essence spreads the misery not the WEALTH AROUND! But I digress, back to my point; only after firmly entrenched in their power do the Socialist turn on those that bought into their myth and force them to work. Those that did not buy into the myth have long since been thrown into prison or work camps as was the case under Hitler; not everyone in concentration camps was Jewish!

The definition of a freeloader is the same wherever you go; one who refuses to work and uses their intellect to beat the system into taking care of him or her. In this country we have Millions of Welfare moms who simply have babies in order to increase their monthly supplement from the government. They have turned their bodies into baby machines in order to increase their income. In a sense they have become a form of immoral entrepreneur in order to gain monetary reward; these my friends are FREELOADERS!

We have indeed found points of agreement, but I reiterate, it is the application of those points where a Socialist and a Capitalist part ways. You my friend and your associates are too easily fooled by these charlatans and I view the world as black and white; not in a racial sense of course. If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck it’s a duck; it’s not some poor misguided swan that was abused as a chick by its’ parents and as such isn’t responsible for the defecation it leaves all over the greens of a golf course!

Yes, I would follow the model of Wall Street and the City of London; and NO capitalism did not bring our economies down! As previously stated the do gooder Socialist tinkering with Capitalism in an attempt to make it more fair to the POOR (oh Boo Hoo they can’t afford a house) brought about this current crisis.

However, I do like your suggestion that investments sold less than a year after purchase attract a penalty tax; finally a solid point of agreement!


breakfastpop profile image

breakfastpop 6 years ago

I too agree with this last point, but for the rest I have to say "give me liberty and capitalism or give me death".


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Pop

Liberty or death; something a Socialist cannot understand; their cry would be give me from each according to his ability and I will give to each according to their need!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Well we are working on agreement here.

It is not unreasonable that people who are working and paying out for rent might wish to purchase a house. I would not sneer at them for wishing to buy a property.

I don't think you intended to sneer at them.

Those of us who have bought and sold houses a few times have learned from the experience. These purchasers were on the whole intending to service their mortgages and eventually own their own homes. They were not sophisticated financially. I think you agree that many did not understand what they were signing, and in particular did not understand that they could lose their investment if the economy went wrong. They have been punished for their naivity and hope by losing their homes, losing their credit ratings,and losing what little savings they had.

Would you agree with that analysis so far or would you regard it as "bleeding heart"?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

I hope you qualify for at least 2 pints of blood from your Socialized system; you have bled at least that much through your heart with this post. Sorry but we are not working on agreement here; we couldn’t be more diametrically opposed than we are on this housing issue..

It is not unreasonable that people who are working and paying out for rent might wish to purchase a house but the purchase of that house isn’t my responsibility and in doing so they must exercise the same critical thinking in analyzing their finances that I have engaged in over the past 9 houses I have purchased. You see I sat down with my chosen finance officer and we looked at what I made; what I owed and determined how much house I could afford. The formula isn’t difficult!

I am not sneering at them for wishing to buy a property; I am sneering at the Democrat/Socialists that played with the system in order to put them into housing they could not afford. It doesn’t take a math whiz to understand if you buy a house that the first 3 years you only pay a mortgage of $300 per month then the fourth year your mortgage jumps to $3,000 per month and you only take home $3,000 per month you can’t afford that house. That’s the games the Democrats played with these people through their surrogate Socialists Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac...

These purchasers were nothing more than opportunist looking for a way to own a home and eventually have someone else pay for it; after all they were told over and over by their party of choice that it wasn’t fair that they did not own a home like everyone else. That’s the way the democRATS play the game over here in order to stay in power; Class Warfare is their greatest weapon! Financial Sophistication has nothing to do with it; it is all based on perceived entitlement; you are entitled to home ownership as well as food; a new car; a wide screen color TV; ETC. ETC. ETC…..

Sorry Charles but you are definitely a "bleeding heart"?


sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 6 years ago

Hi! I've been in Boston, volunteering, handing out flyers, talking. You have an interesting debate going on here. My take on bleeding hearts is they like creating a 'victim' class. Actually, they like having someone to look down on. Makes them feel good. The rest is just talk to hide their true feelings. It's all about finding a way to feel superior.


rachellrobinson profile image

rachellrobinson 6 years ago from Southwest Missouri

...we looked at what I made; what I owed and determined how much house I could afford. The formula isn’t difficult!... I loved that part of your comment. It is so true, I don't understand why people do not get that simple idea when purchasing a home. Of course what you say is true, they got the idea they just were figuring on someone else footing the bill when it all went to hell.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

shelia

without a victim class another democRAT would never be elected again; they thrive of making victims out of people then convincing they are the only ones standing up for them!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

rachell

The formula is simple enough; it's the application that gives liberals fits. They simply can't get past the fact it just isn't fair these poor people can't afford a home so they cook the books in order to give them one and yes; you and I are left picking up the bill!


James A Watkins profile image

James A Watkins 6 years ago from Chicago

I love your Winston Churchill quote! I know the fellow with whom you banter. He is one of the best of his ilk, to be sure. I like him very much.

We cannot expect any person to understand the freedom Americans have and treasure, outside the long arm of the state, unless they themselves have experienced it. Sad, but true.

Your Hub is outstanding. Perhaps your best yet.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I am amazed that anyone can be as stupid as the lenders were. Presumably they were blinded by the quick profits they thought they would make. I have known borrowers in the UK sign up to 50+% interest rates because they were stupid, so I am not surprised that people were beguiled by larcenous lending agents.

I thought I woulds check out this mortgage scandal on Wikipedia. My obvious question is whether the Bush administration in 2004 were socialist minded or were helping out their shortsighted greedy capitalist friends?

"In 2000, because of a re-assessment of the housing market by HUD, anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals. In 2004, these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals.[13]

The intent was that Fannie Mae's enforcement of the underwriting standards they maintained for standard conforming mortgages would also provide safe and stable means of lending to buyers who did not have prime credit. As Daniel Mudd, then President and CEO of Fannie Mae, testified in 2007, instead the agency's underwriting requirements drove business into the arms of the private mortgage industry who marketed aggressive products without regard to future consequences: "We also set conservative underwriting standards for loans we finance to ensure the homebuyers can afford their loans over the long term. We sought to bring the standards we apply to the prime space to the subprime market with our industry partners primarily to expand our services to underserved families.

"Unfortunately, Fannie Mae-quality, safe loans in the subprime market did not become the standard, and the lending market moved away from us. Borrowers were offered a range of loans that layered teaser rates, interest-only, negative amortization and payment options and low-documentation requirements on top of floating-rate loans. In early 2005 we began sounding our concerns about this "layered-risk" lending. For example, Tom Lund, the head of our single-family mortgage business, publicly stated, "One of the things we don't feel good about right now as we look into this marketplace is more homebuyers being put into programs that have more risk. Those products are for more sophisticated buyers. Does it make sense for borrowers to take on risk they may not be aware of? Are we setting them up for failure? As a result, we gave up significant market share to our competitors"


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

"In 2000, when anti-predatory lending rules were put into place that disallowed risky, high-cost loans from being credited toward affordable housing goals, Republicans controlled the congress in this country. In 2004, when these rules were dropped and high-risk loans were again counted toward affordable housing goals guess who had regained control of the congress; you guessed it Socialists Democrats!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks as always James

I value your comments greatly!


PrometheusKid profile image

PrometheusKid 6 years ago from Heaven

The growing radicalism which was beginning rapidly to permeate academic circles was no grass-roots movement. Mr. [Aaron] Sargent cited a statement by Professor Ludwig Von Mises that socialism does not spring from the masses but is instigated by intellectuals “that form themselves into a clique and bore from within and operate that way. * * * It is not a people’s movement at all. It is a capitalization on the people’s emotions and sympathies toward a point these people wish to reach.”


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Can you explain why the lenders lent to people who obviously would not be able to repay?


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

The lenders lent to people who obviously would not be able to repay because they had the Federal Government backing these loans; there was essentially no risk to the lenders. The Democrats had backed Franklin Raines in his mission to provide affordable housing to poor people. Again I quote from two prominent Democrats to substantiate my premise; in September 2003, Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans.

During those same hearings Representative Barney Frank: "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country. Not endangering the fiscal health of this country!

So Charles Fanny and Freddie destroyed the very underpinning of this country!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Well if you give crooks an open wallet like that you will have trouble. They can probably soup up their claim against the Government with penalty clauses against the borrower.

But if you are giving respectable finance companies this opportunity they should treat it responsibly. Are you saying that all finance companies are crooks?

How many of these financiers went to prison?

I am really amazed by some of what you say. In England the Opposition have no power to do anything.

We do have a tradition of the Government supporting targeted lending, but the lender always is at risk for 15-20% of any loss. They cover this by charging extra interest.

Congratulations on your election results!


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

Your Socialist tendencies are guiding your commentary; “if you give crooks an open wallet like that you will have trouble; they can probably soup up their claim against the Government with penalty clauses against the borrower.” Blame big business for capitalizing on a flawed Government plan; never blame a bleeding heart government’s attempt to redistribute the wealth by putting people into houses they could not afford!

The ones deserving prison time is not the finance companies; they broke no laws. The ones deserving prison time is the Government Officials that tinkered with the laws in order to make them “more fair”!

Thanks for the Congratulations!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I thought I should say that we are achieving something here. Two people who have very different views are managing to sustain a polite argument.

One of your colleagues said that people like me need to have a victim class. I was going to respond that your victim class is the American taxpaying citizen of moderate means.

These financiers were knowingly milking the American taxpayer to make profit. They were making loans to make commissions and charges and profit, knowing the bill would land on the American taxpayer. Whatever the legal niceties, that behavior is fraud on the taxpayer.

Earlier you agreed they were wrong. Now you seem to be saying that they should not go to prison. You should think again on this. Crooks should go to prison.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

Not all crooks go to prison; some move to Illinois and become governor!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

You are dodging the question!


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

I told another Socialist today I enjoyed discussing the issues with you; you are the first liberal that doesn’t lead with his heart but actually debates the issues; not that I will ever agree with you but it is nice that we have gone this long without name calling; well done my friend, well done

I agree the American Taxpayer is indeed the victim of this Regime’s policies but it isn’t confined to just those with moderate means; we are all suffering from the fanaticism of this Lunatic!

Again we are back to the Chicken or the Egg question. Had the do-gooder Socialists not tinkered with the Free Market System in order to make it fairer so more poor people could own homes the financiers would not have lent these same people money they knew the poor people could not possibly pay back because they (the financiers) knew they were backed up by the Federal Government/ Fannie Mae! That behavior which you refer to as being fraudulent on the taxpayer was exacerbated by the Democratic Socialists trying to make things fair.

I am sorry but if I agreed the financiers were wrong it was only because they were encouraged to be wrong by the Democratic Socialists!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Thank you for your good wishes. It is important to recognise we are both people (I do not know your gender) of good will. We come from different backgrounds and have had different experiences.

Are you saying that capitalists have absolutely no moral responsibility for what they do? This seems to be a change in your position. Earlier, you were prepared to condemn the capitalists who made money out of this scheme.

It seems to me that you cannot say both that capitalists are amoral and that they should not be strictly regulated

What do you think should be done to capitalists who ripped off the American taxpayer? I say they should be required to pay back every penny of loss to the Government - with interest.

Yes we can!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Why do you want to protect the thieves?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

Tell you what; I’ll meet you in the middle. You condemn the do-gooder Socialists that set up the failure by trying to manipulate the system in order to make it fairer to the poor people and I’ll condemn the capitalists who took advantage of the poor people the Socialists set up! How’s that for compromise?

However our agreement ends there; Capitalists are not inherently amoral, left alone to function in a self regulating system without the interference of do gooder Socialists trying to make it more fair for the poor they will have to behave themselves. The system will regulate itself if left alone. Get Government out of the way and all will be fine!

The same type of punishment should be delved out to the capitalists who ripped off the American taxpayer as should be delved out to the Socialists that set up the system; Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters, Franklin Raines, Bill Clinton, Barrack Hussein Obama (who was a Democratic Senator), Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi………..

Yes we can isn’t working so well for most of the suckers that voted for Mr. Hope and Change!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

No, I am sorry. I will not equate good well meaning people with thieves who knew what they were doing. I do not think you normally would.

If the people you name made mistakes when trying to do good, that obviously is sad. Presumably they did not realise what thieves some capitalists are. If they were proper socialists instead of liberals they would not make this kind of mistake.

Why on earth should you think capitalists are self regulating? All the evidence of past experience is against that argument. All you have is wishful thinking (and that comes from a socialist!)

So let us move forward. Some - not all - capitalists are basically thieves with no morality. I oppose them. You seem to wish them to prosper. Is this really your position?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

For the first time since our debate began I can hear the anger in your voice/reply. I’m sorry but to me the thieves are the so called good well meaning people; you see as far as I’m concerned they are the ones trying to manipulate our Capitalistic System in order to make it more fair in their eyes. Well who died and made them King. Our country has survived all these many years just fine without these well meaning Socialists and as far as I’m concerned we will survive another 200 plus years without them if left to our own devices.

The people I named did not simply make mistakes; they were not trying to do good. They were attempting to coerce the poor downtrodden of this country into thinking they were their champions. You see that’s the way the Socialists over here work; they trick the poor underprivileged into thinking they are their champions. Then they enslave them for generations into poverty by convincing them they are nothing without the help of the benevolent government; the ultimate Big Brother Syndrome!

You oppose Capitalists; I do indeed wish them to prosper because as they prosper so do I prosper!

Good night my friend!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I think you have painted yourself into a corner. Let me try to help you out.

You are too intelligent not to know that capitalism has flaws - partly involving human nature. I accept that socialism has flaws - partly involving human nature.

You truly hold the position that despite its flaws, on balance, capitalism is a better system.

Your anxiety not to concede any flaws in capitalism has led you to defend the indefensible thefts from the American taxpayer.

In Britain, socialism grew from the recognition by the working class that we could together do more for ourselves as a class than we could as individuals. I would argue that we have been proven right.

You appear to be saying that in America the liberals have created a self perpetuating circle where they become the bountiful givers to the poor, paid for by the unpoor. The poor gratefully vote them back into office. The poor stay poor because the capitalist system is not allowed to work properly.

You do not mention De Tocqueville who said (I do not have the exact quote in front of me) that the American experiment in democracy would last until the legislators learned they could bribe the people with the people's own money.

You are then angry that some people in your country want to make life better for everyone. You think it really is impossible to improve the living standards of ordinary people by legislation. Your logic I think is that the wealth of your society is built on capitalism, and the way forward is to encourage capitalism and take off as many restrictions as possible.

Your difficulty is that all the regulations on capitalism arise from bad behavior by past capitalists and sensible measures to prevent further abuse.

Another problem with your argument is that many of the poor do not vote.

Where I am not clear on your position is if you thought it were possible to improve the situation of ordinary people would you want to?

If we - that is you and I - and many millions of others- had the political will we could transform America and the world. For the equivalent of about two weeks of the World's arms spending every year we could ensure that every person in the world had clean water, education, adequate housing, and health services.

No-one need go to bed hungry tonight - but millions do because of the capitalist system.

Where would the money come from? Partly from redistribution . Your vaunted capitalist society has far too many people who are not productive who could be productive. It requires some organisation but Americans are capable organisers. You could pay for what is needed by engaging those who are not now productive.

You call it socialism. I call it socialism. The liberals call it common sense, and are not as ambitious as socialists in terms of changing the world. They just want to tweak capitalism to make it work better.

It is very tempting to join with you in despising the liberals. I see them as people trying to improve the world without significantly changing the capitalist system. They will have some successes and some failures.

At least they want to help.

I do not see from what you have written in this hub that you have any interest in helping others - yet I do not want to believe that of you.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

I think we have long since reached a point of impasse which neither of us knows a way around; we are like a devout Catholic and a Devout (sorry I assume you are not a Muslim but for the sake of argument will use it here) Muslim. You will never convince me Islam is the correct path to salvation nor will I convince you that Christianity is so we both agree to disagree without either of us blowing the other one up.

You say I’ve painted myself into a corner and I say to that you want to paint the entire world beige. That’s what Socialism is supposed to represent; at least that’s my conception of it. You see we are not all the same. We all have differing degrees of intelligence, athletic ability, and capacity to love and give and so on and so on. To me Capitalism is the only way these God Given Talents can flourish. Greatness isn’t achieved through collectivism it is achieved through individual effort. That individual effort; that burning desire to succeed must be rewarded. You can’t reward that effort by taking away the fruits of the individuals endeavor and redistributing them among the masses. You make the masses happy but what does that do for the individual with the exceptional talent. His incentive to excel once more has just been snuffed out!

I recognize that capitalism has flaws which are the results of the human characteristics of those engaged in the system. And yes I firmly believe despite its flaws capitalism is by far the better system.

To me it all boils down to the intent of the perpetrators of the latest debacle of which we continue to go back and forth. You continue to believe they attempted to rig the system for purely philanthropic reasons; I on the other hand know this was not the case. I am 63 years old and for as long as I’ve been politically aware (some 40 years) I’ve watched these same Socialists wreck these people’s lives they pretend to help in the name of fairness and equality. You see these Democrats have destroyed generations of Americans, imprisoned them in huge concentration camps known as large cities and annihilated their schools, work ethic and very moral fiber. I’ll quote you a few statistics in order to further substantiate my point!

City, State, % of People Below the Poverty Level

1. Detroit , MI 32.5%

2. Buffalo , NY 29.9%

3. Cincinnati , OH 27.8%

4. Cleveland , OH 27.0%

5. Miami , FL 26.9%

5. St. Louis , MO 26.8%

7. El Paso , TX 26.4%

8. Milwaukee , WI 26.2%

9. Philadelphia , PA 25.1%

10. Newark , NJ 24.2%

What do these cities have in common

Detroit, MI (1st on the list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1961.

Buffalo , NY (2nd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1954.

Cincinnati , OH (3rd) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1984.

Cleveland , OH (4th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1989.

Miami , FL (5th) has never had a Republican mayor.

St. Louis , MO (6th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1949.

El Paso , TX (7th) has never had a Republican mayor.

Milwaukee , WI (8th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1908.

Philadelphia , PA (9th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1952.

Newark , NJ (10th) hasn't elected a Republican mayor since 1907.

Charles; I know you are proud of your country as I am of mine but surely you are not stating that Britain’s Socialism IS SUPERIORITY TO America’s Capitalism. Before this current Regime America led the world in every conceivable category. A few more statistics to corroborate my position:

Percentage of men and women who survived a cancer five years after diagnosis:

U.S. 65%

England 46%

Percentage of patients diagnosed with diabetes who received treatment within six months:

U.S. 93%

England 15%

Percentage of seniors needing hip replacement who received it within six months:

U.S. 90%

England 15%

Percentage referred to a medical specialist who see one within one month:

U.S. 77%

England 40%

Number of MRI scanners (a prime diagnostic tool) per million people:

U.S. 71

England 14

Percentage of seniors (65+), with low income, who say they are in "excellent health":

U.S. 12%

England 2%

Yes Charles the American liberals have created a self perpetuating circle where they APPEAR TO BE the bountiful givers to the poor, paid for by the unpoor. In essence they only enslave the poor in order to buy their vote with empty promises. Look at the 10 poorest cities listed above. All comprised of the poor waiting for the fulfillment of empty Socialist Democratic Promises. The poor will stay poor because there is no way for them to lift themselves out of the enslavement class the Democrats have created. Their initiative has long since been destroyed through Socialism; you see they were bought of to believe they were nothing without the Benevolent Government allowing them to have what it took from those evil rich guys; the Capitalists. So they sit and wait and wait and wait until the next generation comes along which sits and waits and waits until the next generation.

I am angry that some people in my country use their perceived benevolence to once again trick the underprivileged into believing they want to make life better for everyone. You can’t legislate morality but the Socialists have certainly figured out a way to legislate poverty. Again look at my list of 10 poorest cities above.

Charles, the Socialists have made certain the that the poor vote; hell they have arranged for the dead to vote. They send ballots to prisions while failing to get military ballot out to the troops on time. They know felons are more likely to vote Democratic than soldiers!

As for improving the situation of ordinary people; I believe God helps those who help themselves. You know that old Give a man a fish and he eats for a day but teach a man to fish and he eats for life. Capitalism teaches men to fish; Socialism redistributes the fish that are caught by those that know how. Under capitalism everyone has more to eat because everyone is out fishing!

Charles sorry but spoken like a true Liberal; we could transform America and the world for the equivalent of about two weeks of the World's arms spending every year! Charles there are inherently bad people in this world and I’m not talking about the misguided Socialist, I’m referring to the Muslim Extremist that want to kill both you and I. We are the infidels and in their eyes we either convert to Islam or face annihilation. America must remain the strongest superpower in the world in order to beat back the next Chairman Mao, Nikita Krushchev or Adolph Hitler.

I’ll leave you with one more quote from Abraham Lincoln

"You cannot help the poor

by destroying the rich.

You cannot strengthen the weak

by weakening the strong.

You cannot bring about prosperity

by discouraging thrift.

You cannot lift the wage earner up

by pulling the wage payer down.

You cannot further the brotherhood of man

by inciting class hatred.

You cannot build character and courage

by taking away people's initiative and independence.

You cannot help people permanently

by doing for them,

what they could and

should do for themselves."

Abraham Lincoln


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Really an excellent posting. You really have done some research!

I do not know where you get your statistics from, but how does Cuba rate on the same scoring? The reason I ask is I compared the USA Cuba and Argentina, and although a much poorer country than either Argentina or the USA, Cuba scored significantly better than Argentina on life expectancy and infant mortality.

The UK information is out of date I believe, because of changes made by the recent Labour government.

Your information on the voting patterns of poor cities is useful, but it may not mean what you think. The prosperous areas will tend to vote Republican because prosperous people tend to support Republicans. Are these areas rich because they voted Republican or did they vote Republican because they are rich? Do poor cities vote Democrat because they are poor, or are they poor because they vote Democrat? The poor have identified the Democrats as being more interested in them than the Republicans are. If the Republicans want to challenge this they need to change their rhetoric and reshape their policies.

If prison is deprivation of liberty, then prisoners should not be able to vote.

I agree we are very unlikely to persuade each other. I never expected to convert you to socialism. We have demonstrated is that it is possible for people who are politically opposed to converse in a civilised manner. That is more important for democracy than anything else.

I notice however that you did not answer my questions.

(1) If you thought it were possible to improve the situation of ordinary people would you want to?

(2) I do not see from what you have written in this hub that you have any interest in helping others - yet I do not want to believe that of you. Do you?

Over to you!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Charles for the opening compliment.

If Cuba is such a Mecca why then are they risking life and limb to come to America any way they possibly can? The Cuban American community in south Florida is a living testimony to just how deplorable the conditions are in that country; there is a deep visceral hatred for the Castro Regime amongst these people.

As for the date of this UK info it was sent to me several times this year by several different people so I believe it is relatively recent! The truth is people from all over the world come to the U.S. for treatment that they would have to otherwise stand in line for and take a number; they are still coming so I believe the situation as depicted in my figures is relative unchanged!

Again we disagree; I believe the voting patterns of poor cities corroborate my position entirely. Democratic/Socialists enslave the poorest of the poor; entrap them into large cities with a series of never ending promises to remain in power and nothing ever changes for these people. The system is self perpetuating propped up by a never ending string of Democratic/Socialists standing ready to promise the same old things in order to stay in power.

As for the prosperous areas voting Republican, Republicans provide the type of environment needed for people with initiative to succeed. All anyone can ever ask for from government is a chance to succeed; the government cannot create success for an individual and to attempt to create it collectively as is the case with Socialism simply lowers the collective standard of everyone. The underachievers coast while the overachievers are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their labor. The end result is less goods and services to be redistributed instead of increasing the goods and services as is the case when everyone contributes!

I couldn’t agree with you more, prisoners should not be able to vote; neither should dead people but Democrats have to get votes where they can!

Question (1) If you thought it were possible to improve the situation of ordinary people would you want to? Yes but I would only want to do it by providing them the tools to succeed; not by giving them a portion of what I have in order for them to live better. For years we have been told that the key to success is a good education and I believe this. However a good education is not brought about by throwing Billions with a B at an unworkable system. No amount of money can make up for lack of discipline. Case in point; Private schools spend considerably less per student than public schools yet continue to turn out much better students. It’s time to quit making excuses for the delinquents that terrorize the public school system; if they refuse to sit and learn then send them away to some form of detention trade schools where they are forced to behave. Sherriff Joe Arpaiphola would make an excellent superintendent for a school such as this!

As for number 2 me and God think alike on this one; God helps those that help themselves; I believe he has stated my position far better than I ever could!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

You have given very clear statements on your position, which is what I asked for. Thank you.

You have suceeded in life by hard work, frugality, and probably some luck. I like the definition of luck that "Luck is when preparation meets opportunity and recognises it". I can fully understand that you feel that your 10-14 hour working day 6 and 7 days a week entitles you to a better life outcome than the guys who knocked off after 7 hours and went for a drink.

There are many people who work long hours for poor pay, and see no future. They are natural Democrat fodder. Do you have any words for them why they should espouse your politics?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Charles

You truly are a unique Socialists in that there is no resentment in you for the achievers and seriously don’t seem to have fallen victim to class warfare as most other Socialists have.

I also agree with your definition of success; luck plays a large part in all our lives; I was lucky enough to have been able to throw a baseball very fast which enabled a poor boy from a working class family to go to college on a baseball scholarship. Following college I applied the knowledge learned, plus the tenacity developed through participation in athletics to every opportunity that came along; your recognition component; which allowed me to move up my particular corporate ladder.

As for those you refer to; people who work long hours for poor pay, and see no future; my advice to them is become Republicans. I am not being facetious here. Just look at what the Democratic Party has gotten them? Of course they have to be willing to accept the responsibility that goes along with the long hours. I my case the responsibility was equally as difficult as the long hours. Several Christmas’ Eves I was called away to manage a derailment; I worked as a Railroad Superintendent, because one of my rail lines had just become blocked by a 50 car derailment and we were losing money; tens of thousands of dollars per hour that the line was blocked. It was not easy saying goodnight to my young kids and off to the derailment; often times 4 or 5 hours away. That’s the hard part of moving up and bettering yourself; you have to be willing to accept the responsibility that goes with the long hours to get the pay!

Hope that helped!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I have done the six and seven day week, running a lawyer practice that employed 19 people. I was on call 24/7 for about 20 years.

So I have no problem with people who work hard earning more than people who do not.

I have no problem with an entertainer or sportsman earning good money.

Your stroke of luck was the baseball scholarship that allowed you to go to college. In England, at that time, if you had the grades to go to university the government paid your fees and gave you a grant to live on. My stroke of luck was to be in England.

As well as the stroke of luck you worked hard and you made sacrifices. And you have reaped the rewards. Well done!

I suspect you are also the personality type who would have succeeded without the scholarship. It would have been different and it would have taken longer. You might have made it as a truck driver and then a truck haulage business.

Going back to my person who is working long hours on low wages, their perception is that Republicans want to abolish the minimum wage, and "God helps those who helps themselves". In other words Republicans have nothing to offer. The Democrats appear to understand and to care. The Republicans appear not to care.

Why should such a person support the Republicans?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

Incredible; after all this back and forth I feel like finally I have met a Socialists I like enough to have a beer with. Not one of those corny let’s pretend to talk; teachable moments (God I despise that saying) President Obama charades staged to get his butt outta hot water after he shot his mouth off prematurely about his favorite subject; presumed Racism; but a good old fashion sit down where two guys toss down a few and discuss any and everything. Of course I would prefer my beer to be refrigerated!

Having said all that and even for me it was a mouthful, I’ll move straight to your penultimate paragraph. The rest seems to be a comparison of our ultimate success stories; each moving up within their own system but sharing basic personality traits, hard work, intelligence and tenacity! But my friend, I still assert you are the exception; an individual that achieves his potential within a Socialist Society whereas I am the norm! Capitalism give the individual the incentives to achieve so more people work harder in order to reap its’ rewards!

One more thing before I get to my point, I do have no problem with entertainers or sportsmen who, because they earn not good money, but incredible amounts of money somehow becoming experts outside their chosen field of endeavor. You probably have guessed where I’m going with this; the largest majority of these types are Ultra Liberal and Hugh Supporters of Obama. They have an enormous influence over young people and some not so you people who refuse to grow up and in most cases haven’t a clue what they (the celebrities) are talking about. These people; especially the entertainers are incredibly shallow and completely incapable of critical thinking. Thus they regurgitate platitudes as if they were their own well thought out positions and these become basics truisms according to the celebrity. They are far removed from the average day to day citizen whom they influence! I feel the need to clarify one point here before we move on, it is not the money I resent; I am for anyone making as much money as their talents allow, I am against the use of their celebrity in order to advance an agenda that I am vehemently opposed to.

Finally to your point; why should the poor and downtrodden support Republicans? The answer is simple; because Democrats have failed them. I refer back to my above stated statistics to support my premise. Democrats have promised and promised and promised throughout generation after generation yet nothing ever gets better for these people. Sooner or later they have to wake up and come to the realization you can’t eat promises; you can’t get a good job with promises; you can’t drive promises to the store; your kids can’t get a good education based on void promises; i.e. that’s all the Democrats have ever delivered; PROMISES!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I certainly would like to have a beer or three with you. I expect we could enjoy swopping work stories and politics all night.

I was able to go to school for free and to university for free because past generations of socialists had worked and campaigned for it. My wife was also fortunate. We have often commented that if we had had to plunge into debt to go to university we probably would not have gone.

We notice that a lot of our friends kids, and our kids friends, are not going to university. What a loss to our society!

In the Labour government that has just lost office, the introduction of the minimum wage made a huge difference to people on low wages. Although probably some jobs were lost, other jobs were created as the low paid had more to spend, thus creating jobs. And your crowd want to abolish the minimum wage!

Capitalist society is hugely inefficient. We have many people not contributing financially to society at all. Many others are not able to achieve to their potential.

Even where there is a level playing field, some play with bare feet and leg irons, against the holders of inherited wealth who have everything they need to succeed. With generations of inherited wealth the inequality becomes greater.

You appear to be admitting that the Republicans have absolutely nothing to offer the poor. No wonder they vote Democrat!


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Charles

OK thanks for the beer; but time to debate. I was able to go to school because for 234 years patriots like myself, have fought for the right to practice Capitalism! The debt you plunged into in order to go to College was far worse than any financial obligation I or anyone who borrows money in order to go to college would acquire. You my friend pledged your life to giving an inordinate amount of what you would earn for the rest of your life to a government that would then redistribute it as it saw fit. I believe the overt initial financial obligation would have been far less expensive!

As far as the minimum wage goes I tend to look at it as a Mediocre wage; you say it allows people to live a better life, spend more thus creating more jobs. Yes the spending is mediocre because the wage is mediocre which brings me to my point. In Capitalism there is a limited minimum wage but an unlimited MAXIMUM wage. Individuals are incentivized to unleash their personal potential in order to achieve the ultimate their unfettered God Given Talents will allow; not what some Socialist Society will allow them to keep. You see I do not want the Government telling me how much of what I earn I am allowed to keep; it is my money not the Governments!

I believe your description of a society that is hugely inefficient wherein many people do not contribute financially to society at all while others are not able to achieve to their potential describes Socialism not Capitalism. Yes in America we have many people not contributing to Society but you do not incentivize these people to contribute by giving them more that you would have to take from the contributors. No they are encouraged to contribute only when you convince them to quit looking at themselves as victims. The Socialists in this country have risen to power and remained in power by creating this victim class!

OK let’s talk the holders of inherited wealth who have everything they need to succeed. This group tend to be liberals not conservatives; Socialists not advocators of Capitalism. You only have to look as far as the Kennedy’s to confirm my premise. There has never been a more Liberal/Socialists family in American Politics than the Kennedy’s. He was known as the Liberal Lion; always advocating for higher taxes on the rich yet there were none richer than he. How do you explain this apparent incongruence? Simple, as is the case with most of America’s elite; the Kennedy’s, the Kerry’s and other prominent Democratic Liberals; their wealth is inherited and thus protected. You see we are taxed on earned income not what has safely been hidden away for generations well outside the greedy grasp of government. So they clamor loud and long to soak the rich; give to the poor but soak the working rich that are currently earning income not the real rich such as themselves who have long since hidden their wealth! This height of hypocrisy is the most appalling aspect of American Socialism

Contrary to your assertion I am admitting no such thing. The Republicans are not only America’s but the entire world’s last best hope. If we capitulate as the rest of the free world has then the entire planet end up in the same place as Greece is now. You cannot create a Socialist Society that prospers forever! Your former Prime Minister Margret Thatcher said it best, Socialism is Great until you run out of other people’s Money!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I thought this was getting too easy!

Do I gather you are against inherited wealth? Or against inherited wealth being insulated from tax?

You might be interested in Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, the Prime Minister of Pakistan who was murdered after a CIA backed military coup. He actually gave some of his inherited land to the poor.

What do you say to the argument that great wealth gives an unfair advantage in the US political system - not just the Kochs and the Kennedys, but Murdoch as well?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

I am not against inherited wealth at all. I am against the Hypocrites who have inherited wealth that feign compassion for those less fortunate so they advocate higher taxes which because their wealth is inherited and not earned in the tax code sense they are exempt from th3e higher taxes the clamor for. Sorry for being so circuitous in order to arrive at my point. Most recent example of this John Kerry’s multimillion dollar yacht which he attempted to register in another state in order to advoid the confiscatory taxes of his home state of Massachusetts! It’s this kind of Hypocrisy I deplore. Also look no further than Obama’s Tr5easury Secretary who cheated on his own taxes or Champion of the Black People Charley Wrangle who didn’t pay taxes on property he owned in South America or former Louisiana Congressman George Jefferson who hid $100,000 in his freezer also to avoid paying taxes. All the above mentioned were Liberal/Socialists/Democrats and the last two were also Black! You see my friend the Hypocrisy runs deep in the Socialists over here. Help the poor-Help the Poor-Help the poor but no with my money!

As to your argument that great wealth gives an unfair advantage in the US political system; the richest most influential man now days is the sinister George Soros. If you’ve never heard of him I suggest you look him up. He is an advocate of one world order and is actively subverting the United States. He is Socialists and by far the most influential individual in the political arena today.

Collectively the most influential group in American Politics; they are allowed to contribute Billions with A B, while conservative PACS; Political Action Committees, are restricted as to the amounts they are allowed to contribute. The contribution scale in American Politics is weighted heavily in favor of the Socialists!

Have a nice Sunday Charles.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I am also against hypocrisy. I am generally speaking in favour of motherhood and apple pie.

I suspect if I knew more about American politics I could give examples from both sides. As I recall Nixon and Spiro Agnew were both Republicans. Wasn't it George Bush who dodged Vietnam by joining the National Guard, and Dan Quayle who was a hawk in politics but also managed to dodge Vietnam? At least JFK and John Kerry were in combat.With your greater knowledge I expect you could furnish further examples of hypocrisy from the Republican side. Doesn't one of your guys dress up as a Nazi?

The sad truth is that there are a lot of people in politics who are shabby round the edges. Some are forced into shabbiness by the need to raise money for their campaigns, and some are naturally shabby!

I think you have a natural instinct for "the level playing field", but you also accept that the players with inherited wealth have an unfair advantage. How do you reconcile these positions?

I am afraid you "AB" point was lost on me. Please do explain.

I have several times invited you to explain why a person working long hours on minimum wage should vote Republican, when Republicans seem to offer nothing except to reduce or abolish the minimum wage. To say the Democrats are liars and will not deliver on their promises is not enough. For the Republicans to win the votes of these folk you have to deliver something.

The Conservatives under Mrs Thatcher sold off state assets as part of "Denationalisation". They floated companies on the stock exchange, where everyone could buy a small batch of shares, and then either resell them for an immediate profit or hold them. Millions of people became shareholders for the first time, and millions of others made a quick profit.

Another Tory trick was to say to tenants in municipal housing that they could purchase their house or flat at an undervalue, the percentage of undervalue based on how long they had been municipal tenants. Millions of people became home owners for the first time.

While I have ideological objections to what the Tories did, I admit that these actions gave millions of people a solid reason to support the Conservatives.

One possible way forward for you is to set a figure well above the minimum wage, and say that earnings below this figure have to be declared, but will pay no tax. If you are right that tax is a disincentive this would give poor people an incentive to earn much more. Pay for it out of a redistributive tax, like death duties, or an expenditure tax.

Keep well friend.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

How did we stray off the subject to war? But since you chose to do so I will concede JFK was indeed a war here; he also was more of a Republican than a Democrat. You see in the 60’s when Kennedy was President the Democratic Party was nothing like the Socialist Party of today. They stood for a strong defense and fiscal responsibility. As for Kerry his own Swift Boat counterparts “outed him” as the charlatan he was. Following his so called service he also came back to the floor of the senate and began to trash our own military accusing them of committing atrocities which were proven to be nothing more than political hyperbolae!

As for the guy dressing up as a Nazi; I assume you are referring to the one Glen Back episode wherein he dressed in shorts and lederhosen in order to demonstrate the similarities between Obama’s policies and those of Adolph Hitler. A very effective tactic; demonstrate the absurd by being absurd!

I am all for "the level playing field" but we’ve been leveling it or attempting to do so for the past 50 years. That’s what affirmative action has been about and it has been a dismal failure. It has proven to be nothing more than a crutch for those that otherwise could have been happy in some position wherein their limited abilities could have been put to use earning an honest living. Instead we put these same people into colleges and universities where they had no chance of succeeding and as a result flunked out and became frustrated.

All I conceited regarding players with inherited wealth was they had an advantage over all of us when it came to NOT PAYING TAXES! Thus they became the champions of the underprivileged clamouring to help them by raising taxes on me! I don’t see where I have anything to reconcile; I feel the playing field has been leveled for the past 40 plus years and I also feel those that inherited wealth are nothing more than the height of hypocrisy clamouring for more and more of my money NOT THEIRS to help the so called underprivileged!

Sorry about the AB point; what I meant to say was; “collectively the most influential group in American Politics today are Labor Unions; they are allowed to contribute Billions, while conservative PACS; Political Action Committees, are restricted as to the amounts they are allowed to contribute. The contribution scale in American Politics is weighted heavily in favor of the Socialists!

Why a person working long hours on minimum wage should vote Republican? The basic difference in our systems is that yours offers everyone a shot at Mediocrity while mine offers everyone a shot at excellence. The minimum wage gets in the way of achieving excellence. If a person becomes satisfied with mediocrity then there is no incentive to strive for excellence. The two are incongruent; mediocrity does not allow for excellence. Had I worked within a system which restricted my ability to achieve or worse stifled my incentive to achieve by imposing confiscatory taxes on my income above a certain level then I would not be comfortably retired at 63!

I am not merely saying Democrats are liars and will not deliver on their promises; I have produced statistics which prove my point! Look again at my chart of the 10 poorest cities in America; these statistics are a compilation of years of failed promises!

Finally regarding your tax proposal; “set a figure well above the minimum wage, and say that earnings below this figure have to be declared, but will pay no tax;” I am for everyone paying taxes. Only under a system where everyone pays do you deincentivize arbitrary tax increases because a tax increase then affects everyone. That way government is forced to become more responsible!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I was intending to discuss "hypocrisy" rather than "war". Another difference between former times and now was brought out by one of your film makers, who pointed out that many Congressmen and Senators had sons serving in Vietnam, but he could only find one whose son was serving in Iraq.

If you agree that "the level playing field" is good, but affirmative action is not the road to go down, what do you suggest?

Why do the Republicans not argue for proper taxation of inherited wealth? Is it because their big financial backers would not allow them? Is that hypocrisy and vested interests again?


PARTISAN PATRIOT 6 years ago

Charles

Any point brought forth by a Hollywood film maker is definitely skewed far far to the left. There are no Conservative Film Makers in Hollywood. But be that as it may, the Republican ticket McCain and Palin had sons serving in Iraq. I am not aware specifically of others but I’m sure there are many. Republicans are now and have been the party of a Strong National Defense. Republican President Ronald Regan ended the cold war by bringing about the destruction of the greatest threat the world had ever known, the Soviet Union.

Also as far as "hypocrisy" goes, the Commanding General now prosecuting Obama’s Afghanistan war was ridiculed by his Secretary of State way back when he testified before Congress regarding the success of the Surge. Hillary Rotten Clinton told General Petraus to believe him required “a willing suspension of disbelief!” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said before congress on the Senate floor while the surge was taking place; “this war is lost!” Senator John Kerry made statements in the press that the Americans were bombing villages and killing civilians. I could go on and on with example after example; the Democrats did everything in their power to sabotage the war under President Bush but now that their guy is in charge they want to play Patriotic!

Regarding "the level playing field"; there is just so much leveling you can do. Until the minority group with whom this concept is connected takes responsibility for their own success no amount of playing field leveling will suffice. I refer you to a series of articles written by Dr. Bill Cosby; former black entertainer. He essentially blasts those within his own race for not assimilating into this culture in order to succeed. He blasts the language they use; the dress code they adhere to and their overall unwillingness to adapt. There is just so much you can do until this group accepts responsibility for their own actions!

My friend, the majority of wealthy people of whom you speak are all Democrats. They assuage their guilt for having so much by pretending to care for the underprivileged yet as always is the case; they want to help them with my money not theirs; i.e. RAISE MY TAXES!


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 6 years ago from Rural Arizona

I find this to be the most fascinating hub I have ever read. The back and forth in the comments section is a remarkable read for me. There is dialog between two intelligent people with very opposite ideas, and no disrespectful flaming along the way. I am very interested in what both have to say, and am actually gaining some insight into Socialist thinking and thought processes. I sincerely hope this one keeps going for a long time. Great Hub and great dialog.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Old Poolman

Spread the word; in fact I may publish this dialog in a series of Hubs entitled Point-Counter Point!


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 6 years ago from Rural Arizona

partisan patriot - that is a facinating idea for a hub. It would be one I would follow for as long as their was activity. Great work and I appreciate you sharing it with me.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Thanks Old Poolman

I'l!l give you credit in the opening paragraph


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

On Point Counter Point I have thanked you for setting up both hubs.

We both enjoy the discussion of ideas, and we both care about society. I think you have implicitly accepted that capitalists need regulating because they have repeatedly proved they cannot be trusted. The problem for you is that the regulations irk!

They irk because almost anything you want to do is regulated. The reason there are so many regulations is that capitalists have found so many ways to cheat that rules have to be made for almost every activity.

Most capitalists are trying to make a living. Some are more successful than others. One of the features of capitalism is that if you have found out how to generate surplus value you soon have a lot more money with which to generate yet more surplus value.

"Surplus value" in this context is profit over above the costs of earning the money including paying you a manager's wage. The guy who works a 14 hour day and earns twice what he would for a 7 hour day, is not generating surplus value - he is just working very hard.

As he is working so hard he may be able to save well, but given additional tax and so forth he is not saving as much as he might like. You don't really make money until your money is working for you.

Most people in the capitalist system are earning, but many are not earning a fantastic income. But they have hope, and as you have pointed out there is no upper limit on what they can earn if they succeed.

This makes it more of a mystery why the Republicans are not campaigning for those with inherited wealth to pay more, so those earning their own money can pay less.

Socialists have our own reasons for objecting to inherited wealth. It is perfectly understandable that every person wants their descendants to be secure, but when people inherit so much money that they have no need to work, they are not "equal" with ordinary people.

So why are Republicans and Tea Party folk not campaigning for those with inherited wealth to pay at least their fair share? It would nice to see you linking arms with socialists on a demonstration!


Neil Sperling profile image

Neil Sperling 6 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

Thank you Partisan and Thank You Charles - My hat is off to both of you.. ^5


Old Poolman profile image

Old Poolman 6 years ago from Rural Arizona

Charles - you make some interesting points I will need to read over again to fully appreciate. Thanks for keeping this going.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Thank you for your kind comments guys.

Partisan Patriot is on holiday for a few weeks, but keep watching this space!


Glassy profile image

Glassy 6 years ago from Aus

Um, correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the financial crisis start off in the US - towards the end of the Bush administration by letting the market run free, or did i miss something? I can't see how it was socialism that caused the crisis. The lenders were allowed to capitalize on peoples misfortunes - fully knowing that they couldn't pay it back, i fail to see how socialism cased this, maybe i missed something or wasn't well informed?

Alright now i am not in favor of socialism because if everybody had the same amount of capital, then no one would want to strive to achieve anything because there would be no reward, but if you let capitalism go out of control, things will come crashing down again like they did in the GFC. If people are allowed to capitalize on other people's misfortunes, they will take everything they can get their hands on, every time.

Unions aren't all bad you know. Has anyone thought that all these jobs that are gone because the companies were allowed to shift their operations overseas to make a quick buck? If they weren't allowed to do this, then i believe the jobs would still be going and the workers would have better pay and conditions.

I'm from Australia and we are a capitalist society, but we are very lucky that we had good unions that have negotiated one of the highest minimum wages in the world of $15 per hour and in comparison to the US minimum wage, that's almost triple. Some would say this is bad for the economy, but Australia's unemployment rate is 5.4% and it's tipped to fall to 4.5% next year.

Australia is one of only a few developed countries that survived the GFC - without going into a recession. Now I'm not claiming that Oz is the perfect nation, I'm just pointing out that we are very lucky here because they government doesn't allow people to get too greedy and ruin it for everyone.

To think that you guys actually want to go back to the party that started the GFC, just doesn't make any sense to me at all. Scary times.


PARTISAN PATRIOT 6 years ago

Charles

Capitalism requires some form of regulating in order to keep it from mutating out of control; only a Libertarian believes in total unfettered anything. We are after all human and as such there those within any system that will attempt to impose their individual; or in our case collective philosophy in the name of correcting what appeared to be a systemic rather than an individual problem.

Case in point; the Socialist that took over this government in 2006 and then the Presidency in 2008 answered to a far left coalition which put them into power. This coalition consisted of the Hollywood Left; Academia, the Media; both print and verbal and of course as always is the case the young rebellious idealistic students. Once in place this Socialists Regime used regulations to impose their Socialist Agenda.

In the name of reforming Health Care they moved to take over 17% of this economy while failing to address the real problem with the escalating cost; much needed Tort Reform. After the Razzle Dazzle was over during which they buffaloed the American People into thinking their objective was to reduce Health Care Cost, the truth emerged; cost were going up while services were going down.

Next comes Cap and Trade; this piece of legislation was designed to appease their far left Global Warming crowd; the law passed the house but thankfully stalled in the senate. What did the Regime do; in order to push this through they turned to their regulators in the EPA and imposed the same standards they were pushing for through the passage of their Cap and Trade Legislation only this time they subverted the legislative process and turned to their Socialist Regulators.

The above stated are but two examples as to how the American Socialist Democratic Party attempts to Regulate their agenda into existence; through Subterfuge and Obfuscation they passed so called Health Care Reform in order to bring about REDISTRIBUTION and through the EPA they outright implemented regulations to impose their Global Warming Charade!

As for your “the reason there are so many regulations is that capitalists have found so many ways to cheat that rules have to be made for almost every activity” remark I couldn’t disagree more. I just gave you two explicit examples as to how Socialist use Regulators to impose their agenda!

I’ve never heard the term “surplus value” applied to earning additional money. To accept this premise one would have to agree that individuals are only entitled to keep up to a certain level of their earned income. I of course reject that premise outright for to accept it would require agreement with the premise that an all knowing all seeing all powerful Federal Government would impose such a limit! I believe in a system where individuals or Corporations are not punished for acquiring wealth for in the corporate sense wealth attracts stockholders which allows/encourages corporations to expand and HIRE MORE PEOPLE; a concept this Regime just doesn’t seem to grasp.

Following through with your second point regarding "Surplus value"; the guy who works a 14 hour day and earns twice what he would for a 7 hour day, is generating surplus value for himself. He should not be punished for working those additional hours in order to earn more income and advance the state of affairs for himself or his family. If an individual is willing to work harder than his neighbor he should be allowed to keep the fruits of his labor and not be punished because his neighbor does not see fit to do so!

I couldn’t agree with you more when you point out; you don't really make money until your money is working for you. But for those of us that didn’t start out with money with which to invest and allow it to work for us we had to acquire a means through which to acquire that money. Capitalism my dear friend not Socialism provides us with that avenue through which to acquire that money!

The reason Republicans are not campaigning for those with inherited wealth to pay more, or anyone for that matter to pay more is because Republicans believe we are TAXED Enough Already; thus the resurgence of the Modern Day TEA Party. I don’t have to tell you what this party meant to the past election. Unprecedented Republican gains in the House of Representatives as well as an unheard of gain of 684 Republican victories in the state legislators throughout the country. Also the Republicans now hold 36 of the 50 Governorships. All this my friend because most people in this country believed that WE ARE TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY!

Socialism has never been about equality. Throughout history every Socialist Regime that has risen to power has established two societies within the country; the elitist and the working class. They eliminate the middle class and in doing so extinguish hope for mankind for a better life. The economic pie; what there is left of it, is inequitably sliced up and served to the elitist while the working class are left to grovel over the crumbs from the crust!

I’ll leave you with yet another quote to substantiate my position; this one from the Great Thomas Jefferson: “Democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.

Thomas Jefferson


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Glassy

You said correct me if I'm wrong here, but didn't the financial crisis start off in the US - towards the end of the Bush administration by letting the market run free, or did i miss something? You definitely missed something; in fact you missed 14 years of the developing crisis. The pre-cursor of this crisis, began in 1994 when then President Bill Clinton directed HUD Secretary Henry Cisneros to come up with a plan for creative measures to promote home ownership. His administration went to incredible lengths to increase the national home ownership rate among minorities. It pushed for ways to get lenders to give mortgage loans to first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes. This led to the erosion of lending standards and later led to waves of defaults by people who never should have qualified for a mortgage in the first place.

You go on to say; “I can't see how it was socialism that caused the crisis. A plan to develop creative measures to promote home ownership among those first-time buyers with shaky financing and incomes is nothing more than pure unadulterated Socialism!

Next you state you are not in favor of socialism but if you let capitalism go out of control, things will come crashing down again like they did in the GFC. Again a quick history lesson is called for. In 2002, Republican Congressman Christopher Shays from Connecticut had been so affected by the Enron scandal that he began to worry about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, the two government-chartered housing-finance corporations. They were the only Fortune 500 companies that didn't have to tell the public about their financial condition. Shays called Frank Raines, the head of Fannie Mae to set up a meeting. Raines was a Bill Clinton budget chief and the first African-American chief executive of a Fortune 500 company.

How is it they put it; Eight years of unbridled Capitalism that's what Queen Nancy said in her attempt to lay this destroyed economy at the feet of the Republicans! Do you understand what she said; unbridled Capitalism? Your Highness, the United States of America is a Capitalist Country; at least it was before the Obama Oligarchy took over! Now you along with Barney FWank(hunting Wabbits), Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer and a plethora of other Liberal Democrats have destroyed what little confidence was left after your Fannie Mae and Freddie Mack housing scandal destroyed the housing market which precipitated the downward spiral in the economy.

Shays found out in that meeting that in a move to help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, Fannie Mae had begun easing credit requirements on loans that it purchased from banks and other lenders. That action encouraged banks to extend mortgages to individuals whose credit was not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae had been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration in the late 90's to expand mortgage loans among low income people.

The Republican controlled House Committee on Financial Services held hearings in September 2003 during which Democrat Congresswoman Maxine Waters said: "Mr. Chairman, we do not have a crisis at Fannie Mae, under the outstanding leadership of Mr. Frank Raines. Everything in the 1992 act has worked just fine. In fact, the GSEs have exceeded their housing goals. What we need to do today is to focus on the regulator, and this must be done in a manner so as not to impede their affordable housing mission, a mission that has seen innovation flourish from desktop underwriting to 100 percent loans.

During those same hearings Representative Barney Frank testified: "I think it is clear that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are sufficiently secure so they are in no great danger... I don't think we face a crisis; I don't think that we have an impending disaster. ...Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac do very good work, and they are not endangering the fiscal health of this country. Not endangering the fiscal health of this country, their collapse destroyed the very underpinning of this country!

Moving along to your “Unions aren't all bad you know position; the jobs that are gone are the result of the companies being forced overseas. You guys on the left are quick to point out our global economy and the fact in your opinion America is usurping more than its’ fair share of the world’s resources yet expect our companies to compete in that same market shackled to exorbitant outdated union agreements coupled with gold plated pensions. Also these same union workers are quick to file law suits the moment these same companies make a mistake which results in injury. The companies were also forced overseas in part because of greedy sleaze bag attorneys capitalizing on corporate mistakes! The final piece of the exodus puzzle is the exorbitant tax structure imposed on American Corporations; Socialists love taxes; it’s their way of redistributing the wealth. Well in this case it resulted in redistributing our manufacturing base all over the world; happy my friend?

The only thing we are in agreement with is you’re from Australia and I ADMIRE Australia. I wish we had your Prime Minister instead of our present Dictator. Your Prime Minister’s latest position on the world wide Muslim Problem is straight forward and to the point. This is a Christian Country and if you want to change that go elsewhere!

Sorry again my friend but the Republicans didn’t cause the GFC; I hope I have now enlightened you to that fact.

afte.

To think that you guys actually want to go back to the party that started the GFC, just doesn't m


Partisan Patriot 6 years ago Author

Forrset

Thanks for the defense of Glassy; I also answered him; hope you find my reply satisfactory!


Neil Sperling profile image

Neil Sperling 6 years ago from Port Dover Ontario Canada

I believe the real economic problems began in the 70's when the gold standard was thrown out. Money no longer is attached to anything of real substance and value!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Thanks for joining in, folks. These questions are too important to leave just to a private conversation.

Partisan Patriot - I am sorry you did not understand "surplus value". It is my fault for using technical vocabulary to someone who does not use this vocabulary. If I run a business I have various expenses including return on capital employed. If you think I could employ a good manager to run my business, then figure in his wage. If I am making a notional profit of £60,000, but a good competent manager would cost £55,000, then I have "surplus value" of £5,000. If the cost of capital employed at a reasonable rate of return is £4,000 then my surplus value is down to £1,000.

As you will be aware, quite a lot of small businesses generate no surplus value - or as you might call it "true profit", once the long hours of the owners are figured in at the rate of pay they could command as managers of a similar enterprise. The only people they are exploiting are themselves.

It is only when you are generating surplus value or true profit that the magic of capitalism kicks in. You can invest your surplus value in the same or another business and gradually grow your accumulated surplus value.

If I am a garage mechanic being paid £15 an hour, and I see my boss charging me out to customers at £80 an hour, I see him generating surplus value from my work. I would like some of that, please.

Seperately, when you suggest that ethnic minority groups should organise themselves to achieve political and economic success, you open the door to organisations like the Black Panthers. Is this really what you advocate. That is very "open" of you.

To go back to your point about taxation, I suspect the real reason the leading Republicans and leading Tea Party people do not want to do anything about inherited wealth is that they have it or want to leave it, or both. Now who are hypocrites? This proposal is not about additional tax, it is about a redistribution of the existing tax burden as you have advocated above, away from the incomes of working people and attaching to incomes deriving from inherited wealth.


Glassy profile image

Glassy 6 years ago from Aus

I just want to point out that i am mostly in favor of capitalism, just not to the extreme.

In response to Partisan Patriot, thanks for your info on the housing crisis. If it was the Democrats who caused the housing crisis, then what was stopping the Bush administration from intervening, to prevent this? They had 8 years to act on stopping toxic loans, did they not?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles

I am an economics major of some 40 years past and can honestly say I never heard of the term “surplus value" used in that context; it appears you have taught me something my Socialists friend. When I was in school we referred to the difference between the expenses and capital investment as net profit. So using your analogy my original net profit would be $60,000 (sorry my computer doesn’t seem to have the pound sterling key) but if I chose to free myself up and hire a manager which would further add to my expenses by $55,000 then your net profit would be $5,000. Have I got it or is surplus value the money earned by investing in what some would consider a non essential expense?

True they may be operating at a zero margin of profit but they still have the freedom and flexibility only working for oneself provides. And interestingly enough you chose this analogy. This is exactly the Republican argument against the Democratic Socialists in this country that are screaming to raise taxes on those most evil of all evil entities THE RICH. The Leader of the Regime claims anyone that makes over $250,000 is rich and should be punished by raising their taxes. If the truth be known many of these so called RICH are small business owners who choose not to pay themselves a salary but re-invest most of what they earn back in their business. Their “surplus value” is zero yet they will now be taxed at higher rate so this Socialist Regime can redistribute their money to those that choose not to work as hard or some not at all. This my friend is the other side of the “surplus value” argument when applied to real life!

And interestingly enough, these people do not see that they are exploiting are themselves, I know because the above stated analogy is based on my son and his wife who are such small business owners and have been for the past 5 years. Now this Socialist Regime is threatening to TAX them out of business!

Here you pose the typical Socialists vs. Capitalist argument; “I am a garage mechanic being paid £15 an hour, and I see my boss charging me out to customers at £80 an hour, I see him generating surplus value from my work. I would like some of that, please.” I disagree totally with the concept you are entitled to any of the $65 your owner/boss is making off your efforts. You see the owner boss took the risk and invested his capital in order to get the business going. In most cases he borrowed the capital and is paying it back with interest. Also no one forced you to accept his terms of employment; the fact he is able to generate $65 dollars profit off your labor he is still paying you what you agreed to work for and is therefore living up to his end of the bargain. That’s the trouble with Labor Unions in this country; they agree to work for a certain wage then rage against verbally and in some cases actually work against the company they work for because they feel the company is making too large of a profit. I contend the amount of profit any company makes is not the concern of its’ labor force. If they are unhappy go somewhere else to work. Companies exist in order to make a profit; not to employ people!

I am not an advocate of ethnic minority groups organizing themselves to achieve political and economic success! As I see it we are all Americans in this country and should act as such. I personally refuse to use the term African American; they are Americans just the same as Polish Americans, Scottish Americans, Mexican Americans, and on and on and on. Hiding behind race or ethnic origin is just a crutch for refusing to assimilate in the culture and should not be tolerated nor allowed!

The inherited wealth argument is overblown. I merely pointed to this class of people in order to make a point. Most of the leading Liberal Democrats fall within this class and are the ones that scream the loudest about making the Rich pay their fair share. Sure it would be nice to apply the same equitable tax rate to this class as to the rest of us but we have much bigger fish to fry. I can assure you none within the modern day Tea Party fit this mold. Again our position is WE ARE TAXED ENOUGH ALREADY; all of us that work that is!


Petra Vlah profile image

Petra Vlah 6 years ago from Los Angeles

The comments are just as interesting as the hub itself and it was enjoyable reading it all. My perspective comes from my personal experience of two very different systems - communism and capitalism - and I have lived for an equal amount of time in both. There is good and there is bad in both systems, but most importantly there is a lot of misunderstanding going on, all of it based on the propaganda of the respective regimes.

While I considere all politicians of any government in the world, (including the Rep and Dem of US) as being liers and greedy people interested only in protecting their own privileges, I also believe that regular people can rise above birth status through hard work and dedication; that was true back in communist Romania and it is true here in US. Some good luck and help from God also goes a long way.

I do believe people are NOT created equal; some are more intelligent than otheres, some are healthier, some are luckier, some are more driven and better equipte to handle life. Even when given equal opportunities (which does not really happen most of the time) some will make more of it and get ahead because of their specific qualities and talents, while others will let them go to waste.

Counting on the help of ANY government is a lost cause. If you are interested in getting more information from my first hand experience, maybe you can check out my hub "The way communism affected Romania"


Jason R. Manning profile image

Jason R. Manning 6 years ago from Sacramento, California

Hello Patriot,

There are great exchanges, I am very conservative but I love Winston Churchill; that was a great WSC quote to use in this exchange. I do however disagree with you about a subsection of your beliefs in the car industry. Yes, labor unions have “helped” bring down the big three in terms of overhead and cost per unit competition, plus lousy behavior, but I also agree with Charles that our directors and VP’s were arrogant, thus the “buy American only” slogan to ignore quality issues. This is coming from a die hard Ford fan that was broken by what a horrible vehicle my 2000 Explorer was compared to an Infinity QX4 I traded (the price was the same!), Toyota 4runner or Honda Pilot. I couldn’t stomach buying another Ford product until recently, I feel they saw the light and have repented, but Chrysler has been lost for decades.

I would interject the very relevant history of Great Britain during the 1930’s while Churchill was only MP member. It was the liberals and socialist parties that ignored his wise counsel regarding the building of arms in Germany. It was the socialist and liberals who ask for disarmament in the face of fascist expose, Hitler could have been stopped long before 39’, it doesn’t take hindsight, there were amazing agent of Britain working in Germany all the while. The US is traveling down this path with the liberals asking for unilateral disarmament with Russia, while Iran, China and North Korea build, build build. Here comes history again…

Great exchange, I am a sure fan now, thank you, and God Bless you both for open honesty and dialogue.


Glassy profile image

Glassy 6 years ago from Aus

I agree that in some circumstances unions can go too far and it's sad to see what has happened to the car industry in the US, but it all depends on who you talk to as to where the blame is pointed.

Believe it or not, there are countries that have benefited from unions and Australia is one of them. The mining industry in Aus is huge and with the help of the unions over the years, we have some of the safest mines in the world and some of the most well paid too, if not - the best paid.

Is it a bad thing to pay miners good money? I think not. They work hard and do a risky job, they deserve it. Now the companies that employ these miners make billions of dollars profit each and every year, even though they pay the workers such a high rate of pay. If there were no unions at all, the bosses would do whatever they liked and we would have an industry like China's, with no safety regulations and terrible pay, oh and a high death rate too. If the bosses were allowed to get away with it, they would do it every time.

Unions have helped to bring some the balance of power to the little guy in Aus, by giving them work rights and better pay and some job security. Now i don't know what happened in the US with the unions as i don't live there, but all i can do is talk about how thankful i am as an Aus citizen to have the work rights that i do.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Patriot - The difficulty with the word "profit" is that if a business is making $60,000 "profit" is that gross profit or net profit or what? As we have agreed, a business can be making a "profit" but no "surplus value".

Our car mechanic seeing his work charged out st $80 an hour tends to assume the boss is making close to $65 an hour profit on his labour. Depending on the investment involved, all the costs associated with the business, and the notional cost of employing a manager to work the hours the boss does, there may be "surplus value" created or there may not.

Marx devised the term "surplus value" to describe the "extra" after all conceivable expenses have been allowed for. Many "profitable" businesses do not create a surplus value.

Marx concerned himself with where this "surplus value" arose from. He was looking at textile mills and large factories, which were then the image of successful capitalism. His conclusion was that the surplus value was being created from the work of the factory workers.

All surplus value they created was taken by the factory owner because he controlled the means of production.

He was expropriating all the surplus value for himself. The work force were being exploited.

That is the origin of these terms. In the same way as your University did not teach Marxism (or you were not paying attention), the Marxism that gets through to ordinary workers is often distorted and abbreviated.

Marx recognised that there is a class who own nothing or nothing significant, who work, who generate the surplus value, and who get none of it. They are the "working class". There is a class who own the factories and mills who gain all the benefit of the surplus value created, who are the "capitalist class".

In between there is a class called the bourgeois class, who are working for themselves, are often small employers, and are often aspiring to become capitalists. Small shopkeepers for example. Or managers within capitalism.

Marx saw that there was potential for conflict between the classes. The capitalist class were afraid the working class would rise up against them and seize the factories and other sites of exploitation. They created legislation to make trade unions and "combinations" of workers illegal, whilst organising cartels themselves.

This is the origin of "class war".

The irony today is that the capitalists are true Marxists, looking after their class interest, whereas the workers are frequently not interested in grabbing the entire enterprise but just want a share of the surplus value.

This explains why in the USA the income derived from inherited wealth is sheltered, on a cosy consensus between the rich Democrats and the rich Republicans.


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Petra

First off welcome; to my knowledge this is your first visit; I hope it won’t be your last. Having said all that I must take issue with your opening premise; there is good and there is bad in both systems! If there is any good in a Socialist Society then why have all the previous ones throughout history failed and why is the only true Capitalist based system still thriving; well at least it was for the previous 200 plus years before we decided to elect our own Socialist Regime? Since that was a rhetorical question I of course intend to answer it.

Sorry but I also disagree with your statement, “there is misunderstanding based on the propaganda of the respective regimes. The historical facts speak for themselves, never in the history of this planet has a people achieved so much for the overall betterment of society than has been accomplished through the free enterprise system of the United States of America. I am speaking of the development of drugs, technology, space exploration and weaponry which allows us to continue to beat back the forces of evil that are still out there with the objective of enslaving mankind! .

I will agree with you the problems associated with Capitalism have come about not because the system itself is flawed but the individuals that are elected to govern the system are bad; the problem is not systemic but individual based. People are inherently greedy and both systems allow greedy people to flourish. The difference is under Capitalism the system also allows all individuals that wish to work hard to also flourish while under Socialism there is no such opportunity. The system stifles initiative because the fruits of their individual efforts are taxed away and redistributed.

I cannot challenge your statement regarding Romania; you were there I was not. However if that was indeed the case why were all the people in Romania and all the other Soviet Bloc Countries restricted from leaving and why was there such celebration when the Berlin Wall; the symbol of Soviet Totalitarianism, was torn down?

As for your premise; people are NOT created equal; some are more intelligent than others, some are healthier, some are luckier, some are more driven and better equipped to handle life; I couldn’t agree more. That’s why I’m such an advocate of Capitalism, those that work the hardest and have the most potential should be allowed to succeed; they should not be punished for their enhanced abilities. That may not seem fair to some but that’s reality!

Judging from your well written comments I am glad you are no longer in Romania for I believe your presence enhances the overall intellect of this country!


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Jason

First off thanks for stopping in; my belief in the destructive power of unions is well grounded in 37 years of experience in dealing with them. I was not employed in the car industry but the rail industry of which I speak and the auto industry are very similar; as is the steel industry, rubber industry and former textile industry before its’ unions ran it completely out of the country. Quality was definitely an issue but I disagree with your premise it was the fault of management; unions became virtually uncontrollable in the auto industry. Everyone in this country knew for years never buy a car that was produced on Monday because half the work force was either out or drunk on the job. Management lost control plain and simple.

As far as not buying American cars, I drive a Porsche and a BMW; I will never buy American again. They have long since run me off! The one American car company I’m rooting for however is Ford; they refused the takeover by the Obama Regime and have fared quite well because of it. Most Americans resent the Bond Holders of General Motors and Chrysler being shafted out of their investments in order to pay back Obama’s Union Supporters. That’s why I’ll never buy another GM or Chrysler.

Just like the Socialists and Liberals of the 1930’s that ignored Churchill’s wise counsel regarding the building of arms in Germany and ask for disarmament in the face of fascist expose; those same Socialists and Liberals known today as American Democrats are ignoring the danger of the Muslim extremist threat to this modern world! I couldn’t agree more the US is traveling down this path with the liberals asking for unilateral disarmament with Russia, while Iran, China and North Korea build, build and build. Here comes history again…


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles after all these exchanges I feel we should be less formal and as such I refer to you as Charlie.

Anyway, what I always refer to when raging against this Regime for wanting to tax away all my money is Net Profit. However so many small business owners do not pay themselves salaries so in their case what this Regime will be doing as far as they are concerned is extorting money based on small business gross profit. But who cares; all this Regime is interested in is getting all they can so as to redistribute it to those that refuse to work!

Marx wrote his manifesto and envisioned his system based on a perfect world. In the real world the haves end up resenting the hell outta the have nots. I’ll give you a personal example. Before November 2008; when this Socialist Regime was elected, I never passed a Salvation Army Kettle without putting in a dollar; ever! Now I refuse to give a dime; I figured the people that benefit from this program decided to vote themselves more of my money so why freely give as I once did. They elected a representative that will now stick both hands down into my pockets and grab all he can from me so as to give it to them. Yeah, you’re right; I resent the hell out of the have nots for what they did. This is how Marxism works. It causes resentment among those that once freely gave!

As far as the work force being exploited; that was the original argument that brought unions into existence. And I’ll give you the premise they were necessary, however as I opined to Jason above, they have now driven the Textile Industry overseas along with most of the Auto, Steel, Rubber and just about our entire Manufacturing base. Their greed led to the Auto Collapse plain and simple; greed and the fact they became unruly and uncontrollable which brought about the deterioration of the American made car. Quality became a joke!

Sorry Charles but I believe what Marx accomplished in actuality was expand the "working class" by eliminating the Middle Class. It took years for the Middle Class to emerge in this country through Capitalism and now this Marxist Regime is about its’ destruction through such policies as Health Care, Cap and Trade and Card Check. Obama is a true unadulterated Marxist; no ‘ifs-and or buts’ about it!

Marxism creates conflict between the classes by taking from the unwilling capitalist and giving to the so called working class!

I couldn’t disagree more with your premise capitalists are true Marxists! No one forces the so called workers to work for what they are paid; if they don’t like it go elsewhere. As far as their share of the surplus value; they have nothing invested in the surplus value but their work for which they agreed on a certain compensation. The manager/owner took the risk; in some cases went out on a limb and borrowed the capital to start the business and thus he is entitled to what he chooses to keep for himself.

Enough debate my friend; Happy Thanksgiving!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Happy thanksgiving!

I will post again next week.

Charles


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Sorry!

A slight hiccough. I will post again about Tuesday.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Partisan Patriot

Welcome back from your holiday. We have time for some discussion before Christmas.

I am not surprised at your views on surplus value. Your take is that the capitalist has made a significant investment, taken risk, and expended energy setting up the business and its systems. In contrast, all the worker has done is to turn up for work, do the agreed work, and receive the agreed pay. You do not see why the worker should receive any of the surplus value.

The worker observes that surplus value is created, and sees that without the employer's efforts there would be no surplus value created. Without the work of the worker, no surplus value would be created either. Sometimes the employer really does not understand that the workers also contribute to surplus value and is not willing to share. So the workers sometimes withdraw their labour to put the capitalist under pressure to share. So there is a conflict.

There are also some inadequate managers and entrepeneurs who want to take the profits in the good times but do not exercise their responsibility of planning and building for the future. Then they blame the workers, and they blame the unions.

The workers and the unions are operating in a capitalist society. They try to get as much as they can while they can, just like the capitalists. If the car workers had taken lower wages than they could negotiate, the American car industry would have been even more profitable, but the auto industry would still have hit the buffers because the designs, the quality, and the workmanship were no longer competitive.

The highly paid employees still grasp their high salaries, company cars and company planes. Why should the workers sacrifice when the bosses are not prepared to sacrifice?

Its your society! Do not blame the socialists for the failures of the US car industry boardrooms.

Moving on to tax, "fair taxes" is a wonderful opportunity for a political entrepeneur. You could easily harness the funds and organising capacity of the trade unions, the integrity and enthusiasm of the average Tea Party supporter, and the support of a few enlightened capitalists. The vast majority of Americans do not expect to inherit a million dollars or to leave a million dollars. But if you like set the bar at say 5 million or 10 million dollars. Argue that the inheritances or intra family gifts attract tax after 10 million dollars. And to meet your earlier point, that the income from inherited wealth should also be taxed at the same rate as earned income. The wealthy Republicans and Democrats will argue that fair taxes is "a distraction" but every legislator would have to support fair taxes immediately or lose the next election. Burn the tax shelters!

Then , even when the Democrats are in power, the rich Democrats will be paying their fair tax burden, and they will be less keen on wasting taxpayers money. The guys at the top will have their interests aligned with those of ordinary Americans for a change.

I was appalled to see that when American boys and girls - often from poor and low income backgrounds - were risking their lives in Iraq that American companies were deliberately defrauding the US Government by charging for tens of thousands of meals that had simply been invented. In many societies the individuals responsible would be flown out to Iraq and executed in front of the troops. In these soft times, you could instead introduce a clause into the standard government purchasing contract that if your company deliberately defrauds the American taxpayer the company is forfeit to the American taxpayer.

Then you can seize the company as an extension of RICO, fire the guys responsible, confiscate all the shares, and float the company again. This would help to reduce Government debt. It would ensure that all companies who supply the US taxpayer would make sure that they do not cheat. At the moment the top guys turn a blind eye because it pays them to.


partisan patriots 6 years ago

Charles, the Unions can’t have it both ways. They negotiate for a certain wage which they consider fair then when the capitalist owner makes a profit they scream for more. They took none of the risk; put in only the hours they had agreed to in order to receive the negotiated wage then expect a larger share of the pie. The only way that would work would be for them to negotiate a lower wage coupled with an incentive bonus which would be tied to the profitability of the company but they are against that; they want both!

The worker sees the Surplus Value/Profit created partially because of his or her efforts; that’s what they are being paid for. Work that produces no Surplus Value/Profit is useless and will not continue in a Capitalists System. As I’ve stated so many times in the past; in a Capitalist System Companies exist to make a profit not to employ people! Employment is a byproduct of a prosperous company yet is nothing more than an expense on the balance sheet.

Once a union negotiates the wage on behalf of the worker the surplus value/profit created as a result of their effort is of no concern to them; they agreed to a contract and as such it must be adhered to. If they are unhappy with the terms they should not ratify it but once ratified it must be honored by both side. All that results from the implementation of that contract is superfluous circumstances which are of no concern of Labors!

Charles, there are indeed inadequate managers and entrepreneurs but the system has a means for taking care of them; the entrepreneurs don’t survive and the inadequate managers get fired. Managers are hired to produce results and when the results aren’t there they are let go; no union protection for them; they are simply fired and that’s that!

As far as blaming the unions I’m assuming you are referring to the collapse of the American Auto Industry. Yes, management should have stood up to the unions long before they (the unions) brought about the demise of the industry. They produced an inferior product; not because of design but because of a deplorable work ethic which the unions defended. This coupled with exorbitant wage increases; not commensurate with the labor imputed but tied to your Surplus Value Argument ultimately brought about the demise of the company. You see Charles when Responsibility is not equated with wages the imbalance will ultimately bring down the company!

Charles, the perks you referred to associated with management; high salaries, company cars and company planes; (you left out bonuses) are just that, perks. Management works all the extra hours; faces the constant possibility of termination should things turn sour and takes the proverbial Butt Chewing’s when things are going wrong. The workers are not exposed to any of these. On a personal note I have spent many 36 plus hour days wherein I couldn’t leave until the job was done. So, all of the so called perks I received were well deserved as far as I’m concerned. But, don’t get me wrong, there was no company plane!

Charles; there is no such thing as fair taxes. Taxes by nature are unfair. The only fair system would be to impose a Flat Tax form top to bottom. Say 20% with no deductions. Whatever income you make should be subject to the 20% flat tax. As far as the Tea Party, the Unions and the Capitalist getting together; it isn’t going to happen. The Democrat Socialists in this country have done such an excellent job of creating Class Warfare they hate the other two. The Unions see the Tea Party advocates as a threat to their wages and pensions while they see the Capitalists as the enemy for all the reasons you listed above.

As far as redoing the tax on those that live off non earned income that will never happen. It’s akin to expecting the Lawyers in this country to lead the charge on tort reform. Those that benefit from the present system are by and large those that sit in government and espouse platitudes about taxing the rich! The fox is indeed guarding the proverbial hen house!

Unfortunately I am not familiar with your assertion regarding American companies deliberately defrauding the US Government by charging for tens of thousands of meals that had simply been invented. I agree with you if this is the case those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent! As for flying those responsible to Iraq and executing them in front of the troops or forfeiting the company to the American taxpayer I can’t agree. Execution is a bit strong and as far as forfeiture; the American Taxpayer is represented by the American Government and Obama Motors is one too many Government owned corporations for me!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 6 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Some clever capitalists take a sliver of the surplus value and call it profit share. The workers then believe that their interests are aligned with those of the employer. And so those companies usually have industrial peace. As the companies are paying above market rate they can attract and keep the better workers. The benefits of low staff turnover and better workers mean that the company is more profitable, so the capitalist still has considerable surplus value because the profit share is largely coming from the increased profit.

I am surprised you are not in favour of capital punishment. But then you are probably surprised that I am.

Poor management does eventually get fired, and the business goes bust. The workers also lose their jobs through no fault of theirs.

If your discussions with the workforce are zero sum confrontations you will always have confrontation. And some confrontation is inevitable. If you can develop a good relationship of mutual respect with the wiorkforce/unions you may have less conflict. To some extent this is a "chicken and egg" problem that you as a manager probably inherited.

The companies Halliburton Bechtel and Fluor are among 10 companies fined $300,000,000 for frauds against the US Government. The information is on the internet. The Bush government repealed Clinton legislstion that said that companies committing fraud against the US Government would be barred from bidding for Government contracts for a period of time. I personally would take the crooks out to Iraq and shoot them. That would quite quickly end the problem because companies would stop doing it.

We seem to be coming towards an agreement on tax. A flat rate tax on all income would be acceptable. Although a "progressive" argument might be to say that the first slice of income should not be taxed, the effect of everyone paying their fair taxes would probably generate enough money to reduce the general tax rate. While I would prefer the higher earners to pay proportionately more, getting them to pay taxes on all they receive would be an improvement on the present position.

You could follow the Hong Kong example where the tax threshold is quite high, so no tax is paid for a long way up the scale. This gives everyone incentive to work hard and earn. I have the impression that their social security is close to non-existent. Government is funded by a sales tax and income tax from the higher earners.

You say that those who have inherited wealth will never agree to pay fair taxes. So vote them out!

I have said earlier that the Republicans seem to have nothing to offer the hard working low waged person, to persuade them to vote Republican rather than Democrat.

The fair taxes coalition could achieve a result very quickly, if it were led properly and was deliberately inclusive. It might also wean the poor and the unions away from the Democrats and the Tea Partiers away from the Republicans.

It was Obama who said "Yes we can." Wouldn't you enjoy saying "Yes we can,"?


partisan patriot 6 years ago

Charles; spoken like a true Socialist. A sliver of the surplus value and call it profit share; how much is enough when they don’t deserve anything above the negotiated wage from the beginning. If the Capitalist doesn’t increase the profits then their company will lose the ability to attract investors and dye on the vine!

I am indeed in favor of capital punishment. In fact if I had my way immediately upon conviction they would be marched off straight to execution row and be executed within a week. But your scenario is just not plausible; in a society that’s reluctant to execute the worst amongst us; i.e. child molesters, cold blooded killers and such; we would never ship the perpetrators off to Iraq to be executed. But I applaud your stance on Capital Punishment!

I disagree with your premise; “poor management does eventually get fired, and the business goes bust. The workers also lose their jobs through no fault of theirs.” It is entirely the workers fault or at least their unions. It is their incessant greed coupled with a complete lack of a backbone by management that allows contracts to be negotiated which eventually break the companies!

Charles, with all due respect you do not know the American Worker. Through years of out of control greed and intimidation our union workforce has turned into the intimidating beast it is today. They are like the terrorist enemy the world faces; good will is seen as weakness and they go for the jugular every time; mutual respect synonymous with capitulation to them.

This is indeed a "chicken and egg" problem, but in this case the egg has turned rotten!

Charles you have an extremely violent side when it comes to punishing Capitalist. Are you equally outraged when it comes to do gooder Democrat Socialists? Take for instance Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Maxine Waters and all the other Democrats that continued to push for more and more loans to low income families in an attempt to put them in housing which precipitated the housing market crash! Should the also be taken Iraq and shot them? Or is your outrage only aimed at wayward Capitalists?

Amen to our agreement on the flat tax, but I contend everyone should pay. Only then will you establish a system where everyone is concerned about the rate. You propose; exclude a segment form paying; do so and they will advocate extorting more and more from those that pay! Only when everyone has something invested in the paying will you have everyone concerned about the rate!

Sorry Charles, I could never enjoy saying "Yes we can", this merry bunch of Socialists have ruined that expression for me!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

You sound so miserable I am worried for you. If you own a Porsche your material needs are clearly met, but you are desperately concerned for your country and for your society.

As a socialist I am pleased you recognise there is something wrong, because that is the first step on our journey to trying to put things right. For this reason I see the Tea Party movement as a national recognition that things are wrong.

Then we can move on to discussion about how to put things right.

In our discussions you naturally started with the standard "right" positions but after discussion you have modified your positions somewhat.

I have not yet persuaded you that something must be done about the poorest third of your country, so that the child on a trailor park or the child of an itinerant (legal) agricultural worker has the same chances as a product of Groton. I think you would not object to doing this if you could see a way that would work. Your main objection is to tax dollars being spent in a way that will not work.

I once employed a man who had been a shop steward (unpaid elected low level trade union position) in an industry where labour relations had been dreadful for decades. It had got to the stage where neither side believed each other. When he came to work for me it was a long time before he could adjust to my fairly happy pretty open law practice. If you have spent 40 years working in such an industry it will have seared your soul. It will also sour your views of the working man. As for "chicken and egg", it is essentially for management to find a way to break the cycle.

I was pleased that you accept that when businesses go under the responsibility is with the poor management rather than with the workers. One real problem is that when a company is badly run the workers cannot do much about it. Rolling over and allowing poor wages and poor working conditions does not actually fix the problem of a badly run company.

On tax, the effect of removing tax shelters so everyone pays tax on all their income will be significant to the rate of tax that is paid. I take your "citizenship" argument that all workers should contribute to society without exemptions for the low paid.

I distinguish between people who know they are committing crimes and know that what they are doing is wrong on the one hand, and people who are doing their best to improve society - even if as you say they make mistakes. You seem to want to shoot the well intentioned guys who waste tax dollars but you are soft on the crooks who knowingly steal from the taxpayer.

This may not represent your true position, but it is the impression you have given.

As for the "sliver of surplus value", the point I am making is that the clever capitalist still has the rest of the cake. Having better workers and low staff turnover means that the cake is bigger so the capitalist is no worse off.


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles my friend, believe me I am not miserable. To the contrary I am happier than I’ve ever been now that I’m retired. It is only when I begin discussing politics and think about those that wish to tax my hard earned life savings away do I become angry.

I am desperately concerned for my country and for my society; just look what’s happening in your country today. Students rioting in the street because the colleges expect them to pay a mere £12,000 for a year’s tuition. The free ride has got to stop sometimes. Most students in this country wish that’s all they had to pay a year.

We are 100% in agreement regarding the Tea Party movement but I’m sure our reasons are diametrically opposed. I believe they were called into being because of a national awakening that this country was moving towards socialism; No Taxation Without Representation. Obama and his Socialist had passed legislation after legislation against the will of the American People!

I don’t see that my positions have been modified but if it makes you feel better to think so then by all means do it.

The poorest third of my country, is better off than most of the world’s population. They have Wide Screen T.V.s, Food Stamps and from what I’ve seen all the crack cocaine they care to indulge in. My main objection is indeed the way my tax dollars are being spent; there is no accountability associated with the Giving; JUST GIVE-GIVE-GIVE and then GIVE SOME MORE! Such is the way the Socialist in my country keep the poor enslaved and themselves in power!

For what it’s worth I did my small part on my operating Division to improve relations with our union employees and for the most part they responded well. It primarily was that small 10% or less that wanted to resist supervision; the ones who knew best how the job should be done then when they screwed up expected their Union to rush in and protect them. This small percentage was also standing ready to sue the company when on occasion they managed to injure themselves and yes; there was an army of sleaze bag attorneys standing in waiting to handle the cases. This my friend is why I am so sour on organized labor. From firsthand experience, regardless how well they are treated; once the opportunity presents itself they will go after the big bucks law suits offer every time!

Wow, we seemed to have a big disconnect here; I quote my paragraph in its’ entirety below:

“I disagree with your premise; “poor management does eventually get fired, and the business goes bust. The workers also lose their jobs through no fault of theirs.” It is entirely the workers fault or at least their unions. It is their incessant greed coupled with a complete lack of a backbone by management that allows contracts to be negotiated which eventually break the companies!”

I do not agree with your premise that those that; as you put it knowingly steal from the taxpayer are criminals. If you are referring g to the Corporate Crooks like Bernie Madoff then I’m with you; fry him. If however you are referring to taxpayers who use legal loopholes in order to keep the government from extorting any more of their hard earned income than necessary then once again we are diametrically opposed. I do not feel this government is entitled to the current share of my income it takes and as such will exercise any loophole available to prevent them from doing so.

As for the well intentioned guys who waste tax dollars, I am for forcing them to waste their own money on their causes not mine!

We can go round and round forever on what percentage of the "surplus value" is enough for the worker. I contend any at all is over and above what his union bargained for and should be looked at from a position of gratitude instead of greed wherein it is viewed as not enough. We’ll argue this all day and never agree so I’ll just have to respect your right to be wrong on this issue!


sheila b. profile image

sheila b. 5 years ago

Wow! You have quite a conversation going here. Amazing that so many socialists are eagre to become slaves of the State. Don't they know - yeah, from history - when socialism comes in, they are assigned their job, and their pay. I'm tired of the ignorance of these people who don't bother to learn the truth.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Sheila - thanks for joining in. You may be interested to know that Lenin at one time thought (as a positive) that true communism would lead to a withering away of the state. That didn't happen!

When I get round to writing Socialism 101 I will mention the impact of World War 2 in showing ordinary people in Britain that organisation and planning - which is the antithesis of market capitalism - are enormously effective in generating the means to fight a major war. One of the reasons Labour did so well in the 1945 General Election was because people were determined that this generation of servicemen were not going to be betrayed by the Tories the way their fathers had been.

Partisan - I am pleased you are well in yourself. I am also pleased that when you tried to be reasonable with the workforce, 90% responded favourably. Some of the others might have come round over time. Some I accept would be irreconcileable.

You have mentioned the rapacious personal injury lawyers before. Part of the problem is that the cases are funded by the lawyer, who then takes a significant cut of the damages awarded. We have a different system in the UK. The lawyer does not take a cut of the damages.

The court sets an hourly rate for litigation lawyers on a scale that varies with the length of time thay have been qualified. In recognition of the fact that the lawyer is funding the case himself he is allowed to charge above his hourly rate by 25% if the case settles quickly up to 100% if the case goes to trial. And of course he only gets paid if he wins.

Another possibility that might appeal to you is the Pearson Commission of I think New Zealand who said that it really was inefficient to use the courts to resolve complex issues of causation and medical complexity. About a third of the money paid out by insurance companies went to the lawyers and their helpers. If a person had genuinely been hurt they had suffered a loss -so it was cheaper to pay out everyone who was seriously hurt almost regardless of fault. People who hurt themselves deliberately to get compensation would not be elegible. But money would not be wasted on lawyers.

I respect your position on surplus value. Neither of us is going to shift the other.

On tax, you appear confused. On the one hand you object to the rich Democrats who have their inherited wealth squirrelled away in tax shelters but you also say as a pragmatic point that you will take advantage of any loophole you can. This isn't hypocrisy is it?

With fair taxes on all income, whether flat rate or progressive, there are no loopholes or shelters and everyone pays what they should.

With Government expenditure you have three seperate issues which have become emotionally intertwined. One is that the overall tax rate is too high.

The second is the sheer incompetence with which US taxpayers money is spent, even on worthy issues such as Defence.

The third is that there are some issues where Government should not be involved at all, or where the states should handle the issue rather than the Federal Government.

Would you like to elaborate on tax?


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles, sorry but I guess I remember WWII differently. As I recall American ingenuity backed by American Capitalism saved the world from Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan. Wasn’t Great Britain being bombed into submission before we stepped in? I am not taking anything away from the tenacity and intestinal fortitude shown by the Britt’s and acknowledge to this day they are our most loyal and trusted ally but to say somehow organization and planning are a part of Socialism I can’t connect the dots. What is Capitalism if not the culmination of organization and planning; not from an organized labor standpoint but from the standpoint of organizing the capital while amassing the investors necessary to carry out the plans provided by the visionary who launched the project. During the war our Capital Plants were turned into War Producing Giants capable of mass producing weaponry the likes of which the world had not seen before!

Charles, as far as reaching the remaining small percentage over time; I would contend 37 years was long enough. Some were simply incorrigible and as such became the target of my aggression!

I will give you this; your system seems to be better than ours when it comes to lawyers. They have become the cancer that is eating away at the free enterprise system over here. The sky is the limit in our court system and as such they have driven much of our industry off shore; they also are the single largest contributing factor to escalating health care cost!

The Pearson Commission of New Zealand sounds interesting but there will never be a replacement system in this country; there’s simply too much money available for the lawyers and because of that the system will never be reformed; the best we can hope for is some type of tort reform within the existing system.

Charles I am not confused on taxes; I am sick and tired of my government taking more and more from me in order to spend it on programs I do not support. That’s why I will take advantage of any loophole I can; it’s not confusion you are witnessing it’s complete and utter disgust in a political system that’s gone awry. The old saying I’m mad as hell and I’m not going to take it anymore suits me to a T!

As I said before I 100% behind a flat tax; do away with all shelters but also make everyone pay something; only then will everyone have a stake in keeping the rate as low as possible.

With fair taxes on all income, whether flat rate or progressive, there are no loopholes or shelters and everyone pays what they should.

Charles you are sounding more like an American everyday; “there are some issues where Government should not be involved at all, or where the states should handle the issue rather than the Federal Government;” hooray for States Rights. This current Regime is attempting to wipe out all States Rights!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Patriot

I spent part of my childhood in Canada. One of the most formative experiences of my childhood was an American encyclopedia for children published each week at $1 a volume available from my local supermarket. This would be I think about 1958 or 1959. It showed the world from an American child's perspective. Later on, back in England, I found a great stack of Readers Digests that I read through. I studied the American expansion and "Manifest Destiny" for an exam I sat at 16, and studied American Political System for one term at University.

In Britain in World War 2 (which you guys joined quite a while after us) we had "direction of labour" where people were assigned to jobs. Boys and young men from the big cities were ordered to work down coal mines, and were billeted in the coal mining villages. Coal miners who wanted to join the Armed Forces were often refused permission because they would be more useful as experienced miners than as soldiers. It was recognised that we needed to run the coal mines properly, including investment. Investment in the coal mines and the railways had been minimal since an injection of Government money during WW1. The general experience of having the state run things during WW2 was that planning and organisation by Government worked.

There is a story about Churchill you might enjoy. There were complaints about the meat ration. He asked to see the meat ration, which was shown to him on a plate.

"That's quite reasonable. What are people complaining about?"

"That's for a week, sir."

We should never cease to be grateful to the Americans for LendLease , loans and physical supply of goods and soldiers. We would not have won the war without you. The building of Liberty Ships was enormously important. So were SPAM and dried eggs. World War 2 basically exhausted Britain and Europe. Without Marshall Aid much of Europe would have starved and would have gone Communist.

As you may have gathered, I am not anti-American. That does not mean that every American is individually pleasant or that the American Government has always been wise.

If you have a society that has largely been free of war, and has healthy adults added to its labour force by immigration every year over centuries, and has land in which to expand, and has raw materials aplenty, that society will do quite well under almost any system of government.

The capitalist system is particularly good at generating new products and new methods of production. The socialist system can be good at generating a level playing field and in supporting the weakest. What we have in Britain is a capitalist society with socialist elements. In some areas it works well and in some areas it doesn't. In America there are some things you do well and others where you are not working well.

I have no strong views where the dividing line should be between the responsibility of states and the responsibility of the Federal Government. When the USA was formed there were failing individual colonies, and even today I suspect there are some states that are carried by central government.

What would you regard as a fair level of tax, and what does government do now that you would cut?


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles

Regarding your Churchill story; in a depressed Capitalist society that’s a week’s meat ration, in a Socialists Society there isn’t any meat at all; only Gruel aka Oliver Twist!

America has been called by Ronald Regan “that great shining city on a hill”. It has been called that because it represents hope for millions around the world. People come here because they know they can escape their present role in non Capitalists countries and go to work within a system that the sky is literally the limit as far as how far they can go in life. Only in America is such individual progress possible.

I never thought you were anti-American; you are simply defending a system through which you progressed the same as I am defending the system through which I progressed. The difference is you by definition progressed because you were a certain type of professional which Socialists value. You see in a Socialists elitist system Professionals such as yourself have value assigned to them that individuals such as I do not. I graduated from college with an economics degree and went to work in an industry where the only value my degree brought with it as far as how it was associated to the job I was trained to do was merely as a door opener. My degree opened the door to the position; only college graduates were hired as Management Trainees! So you see the difference in the two systems; only those deemed as Professionals are progressed in an elitist Socialists Society wherein a Capitalists System all those that have demonstrated the hard work and tenacity to succeed are rewarded.

Charles I couldn’t agree with you more, every American is not individually pleasant and as for our Government; look at this current bunch for the most prominent example of the unwise.

As for our society being largely been free of war, I disagree with that statement. America spent most of the 20th Century freeing the rest of the world from would be despots. We have already discussed WWII; there was also the Korean War; the Viet Nam War (which our liberal news media as well as liberal activists lost); the War in Kosovo, The 2 Iraqi Wars and now Afghanistan; I know I’ve spilled into the 21st Century. But the point is America has always seen itself as the defender of Liberty and Freedom and has utilized our might for the good of the World; you might say we Represent Might for Right!

I know your main gripe with our system is you don’t see the level playing field that has been created. The problem is we’ve been at this for well over 50 years and those charged with creating the field have squandered the wealth set aside to do so. One has to look no further than Detroit, Chicago, and all other large Social Experimental Cities to prove my point. Billions have been spent in those cities to educate the poor and raise their standard of living and still today we are left with Cesspools of existence. Those that scream the loudest regarding this subject are the guiltiest as per my response several exchanges back!

So all I can add further to that subject is the Socialists in this country are inherently evil. They scream for a level playing field but given the resources to establish one they spend the money on political pay backs in order to remain in power. The poor are but pawns upon which they depend in order to remain in power.

You and I are in agreement concerning States Rights. This Socialists Regime has trampled the concept and in doing so saddled them with future debt in order to pay for increased social programs which will bankrupt the states in the future.

As for me a fair level of tax would be 17% levied upon everyone; I would cut most social programs. I would replace food stamps with commodities so the poor receive products which would be used for the purpose intended; feed them and their children. There is a program in this country to feed poor children Breakfast, Lunch and Dinner at school as well as weekends and summer. What the hell are Food Stamps for? The single mother receives food stamp dollars based on the number of children she has. Now if the school’s feeding the kid’s breakfast, lunch and dinner what are the food stamps for? That is but one simple example where Billions are being wasted in the name of feeding the Children. And Charles; all this is being done under the guise of leveling the playing field; these poor children can’t learn at school if they’re hungry. That’s the way Socialism works over here!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

It is so interesting to see your take on events.

Yes the USA has been involved in wars, but they were not on your soil since 1865 (until 9/11). In relation to the size of your society the military committment was significant but not all-consuming. The social effects of WW2, Korea, Vietnam and Iraq/Afghanistan are significant for the USA.

Apart for three weeks in the school holidays when I was 16 -in the local Council parks department - I have never directly worked for the State. I worked nearly three years in a Law Centre which was funded by the state, and apart from that have been employed or self employed.

I set up as self employed because my politics as a socialist would make it difficult for an employer to keep me. So one purpose of the business was to earn a living rather than to get rich and the second was so I could take on uneconomic cases where there was an important point of principle to establish.

You are quite right that I could have earned more as a lawyer than as an economics graduate normally would, but only if I were prepared to work for the rich. The capitalists have financially larger disputes and will pay to attract the best lawyers. The cases of the poor were generally funded by legal aid, where I was paid for the work I did at a low rate. Working for the poor I never made much - but I was happy - and proud of the quality of the work my team did.

There is no magic "right" figure for tax. An English politician called Enoch Powell wrote a book proposing 22 1/2% tax, and he was quite honest in saying what he would cut.

One disturbing feature of our public finances is that the politicians of both parties have avoided hard choices by borrowing, saddling further generations with debt.

Abolishing food stamps may or may not be the right thing to do, but if you are going to replace food stamps with actual food you have not yet made any savings. So what are you going to cut?

President Eisenhower warned of the military - industrial complex back in the 1950s. You now have a situation where many large companies feed off the state, and then support politicians who will support high Government expenditure. They have bought both the parties. To get down to 17% will require huge cuts in Defence. Are you prepared to do that?

You could I think end agricultural subsidy, but I am told that is not very large.

This series is almost becoming "in the mind of a Republican", which is not what was intended.

There is enough wealth in the world, and enough income in the world, that there is no need for millions of people to go to bed hungry tonight. The entire world could have clean water, sanitation, housing, food, education, health care - and hope. It is a question of organisation and redistribution. I have an answer to most of the problems of the world, You do not.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

My apologies. Since 1865 you have had Pearl Harbour as well as 9/11. And some failed attempts.


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles; first off I hope you had a very Merry Christmas filled with joy and prosperity; at least as much prosperity as a Socialist will allow themselves to have before they give half of their presents away.

All I can say regarding the USA’s military commitment is a big Thank the Lord for it and I’m sure the rest of the free world would add a big AMEN! Without it the world would most likely have spoken German during the decades following the 40’s and 50’s and possibly into the 21st century. Of course with the rise of Communist China which would have supplanted the Soviet Union as the predominant Communist Power since the Soviet Union would not have formed following Russia’s defeat by Germany during WWII. Also how would the ultimate struggle between Germany, Italy and Japan have worked itself out. Something tells me Hitler wouldn’t have taken to the idea of shared power very well or for very long. So again thank God for American exceptionalism and of course American Capitalism which ultimately led to the development of the Atomic Bomb which ended the War!

Having said all that I applaud your independence; not working for the state as most Socialist seem to do yet you are an attorney so I would expect you could do better even in a Socialist Society working for yourself!

Charles, there is nothing wrong with getting rich. We are not all equal despite what you Socialist would like us to believe. Those of us with special gifts; be they athleticism, intellect, musical talent or otherwise should not apologize for God’s benevolence and as long as we are generous with our charitable giving, we should not expect the Government to take most of what is left and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Charles, the world is not a fair nor an equal place; would you expect a man with a more beautiful wife to share her with someone with a less beautiful one; of course not. The argument is the same; he was able to attain the more beautiful one because his physical attributes were more advantageous than the next and as such he was able to attract more beautiful women! The same applies to the man with the better intellect which allows him to earn more money; he should not be expected to share some of his wealth with the less intelligent!

I am glad you are happy and seem not to have a resentful bone in your body. Me on the other hand resent the hell out of those that stand there with their hand out and their mouths open whining about all I have expecting the government to take most of it away and give it to them. Sorry Charles but if you are OK with that system we will never close the abyss between us!

Regarding your 22 1/2% tax, I don’t think it would have to be that high if everyone; I mean everyone paid. That’s wherein the fallacy lies around 50% of this country pays no taxes! As far as programs to cut; if we merely cut the waste we could make it work; the waste and the duplication. I’ve already pointed out the duplication in previous post! All we need to make this system work once again is return it to the original blueprint the founders had in mind when setting it up. Term Limits would solve all our problems and right the so called ship of Democracy once again but that would mean those leeches that call themselves Politicians would actually have to go back to work after 2 terms!

I disagree totally with your assertion, abolishing food stamps does not bring about any savings. As I detailed a mother is given additional food stamps with the addition of each child to the family. These food coupons are provided for the express purpose of providing food for her and the children. Now this Socialists Government has decided these children aren’t being properly fed at home and as such enacted additional social programs in order to feed the kids breakfast, lunch and dinner at school as well as send food home for the weekends and summer. What the HELL ARE THE FOOD CUPONS FOR? My argument is if you gave them actual food the mothers could not trade this food as easily for crack cocaine or cigarettes or booze and the children would have food. The Government would not have to waste billions on unnecessary food for kids the parents were not feeding!

President Eisenhower lived in the pre technology age and as such could not possibly assess what would be needed to deter future enemies. I contend Ronald Regan saved the world from the Soviet Union with his Star Wars Technology. That is the only thing that keeps the Mongrels from the east from overrunning the world once again and the Muslim Jihadist from blowing us all back into the Stone Age. I do not agree with huge cuts in Defense and neither should you!

Charles if you are saying I somehow morphed from a Capitalist into a Republican by your; “this series is almost becoming "in the mind of a Republican", remark I contend it always has been that. Only Republicans are Capitalists, Democrats in this country have long since sold their hearts and souls to the socialists! George Soros is the main puppeteer of the Democratic Party!

Charles here is where we part company once again; you see the essence of evil in this world as being the Greedy Capitalists that refuse to redistribute their wealth, I see the essence of evil is the despots that establish themselves as rulers of these countries then starve their people while they amass fortunes. You cannot help the starving people in Uganda by sending millions of relief dollars; those dollars never reach the people. The problem with the world today Charles is that most of it is run by evil people that ascend to [power on the cloud of helping the little man when in essence all they want to do is grab power in order to enrich their own war chest!

Capitalism not Socialism is the world’s last best hope for stopping these evil men!


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles; first off I hope you had a very Merry Christmas filled with joy and prosperity; at least as much prosperity as a Socialist will allow themselves to have before they give half of their presents away.

All I can say regarding the USA’s military commitment is a big Thank the Lord for it and I’m sure the rest of the free world would add a big AMEN! Without it the world would most likely have spoken German during the decades following the 40’s and 50’s and possibly into the 21st century. Of course with the rise of Communist China which would have supplanted the Soviet Union as the predominant Communist Power since the Soviet Union would not have formed following Russia’s defeat by Germany during WWII. Also how would the ultimate struggle between Germany, Italy and Japan have worked itself out. Something tells me Hitler wouldn’t have taken to the idea of shared power very well or for very long. So again thank God for American exceptionalism and of course American Capitalism which ultimately led to the development of the Atomic Bomb which ended the War!

Having said all that I applaud your independence; not working for the state as most Socialist seem to do yet you are an attorney so I would expect you could do better even in a Socialist Society working for yourself!

Charles, there is nothing wrong with getting rich. We are not all equal despite what you Socialist would like us to believe. Those of us with special gifts; be they athleticism, intellect, musical talent or otherwise should not apologize for God’s benevolence and as long as we are generous with our charitable giving, we should not expect the Government to take most of what is left and redistribute it to those less fortunate. Charles, the world is not a fair nor an equal place; would you expect a man with a more beautiful wife to share her with someone with a less beautiful one; of course not. The argument is the same; he was able to attain the more beautiful one because his physical attributes were more advantageous than the next and as such he was able to attract more beautiful women! The same applies to the man with the better intellect which allows him to earn more money; he should not be expected to share some of his wealth with the less intelligent!

I am glad you are happy and seem not to have a resentful bone in your body. Me on the other hand resent the hell out of those that stand there with their hand out and their mouths open whining about all I have expecting the government to take most of it away and give it to them. Sorry Charles but if you are OK with that system we will never close the abyss between us!

Regarding your 22 1/2% tax, I don’t think it would have to be that high if everyone; I mean everyone paid. That’s wherein the fallacy lies around 50% of this country pays no taxes! As far as programs to cut; if we merely cut the waste we could make it work; the waste and the duplication. I’ve already pointed out the duplication in previous post! All we need to make this system work once again is return it to the original blueprint the founders had in mind when setting it up. Term Limits would solve all our problems and right the so called ship of Democracy once again but that would mean those leeches that call themselves Politicians would actually have to go back to work after 2 terms!

I disagree totally with your assertion, abolishing food stamps does not bring about any savings. As I detailed a mother is given additional food stamps with the addition of each child to the family. These food coupons are provided for the express purpose of providing food for her and the children. Now this Socialists Government has decided these children aren’t being properly fed at home and as such enacted additional social programs in order to feed the kids breakfast, lunch and dinner at school as well as send food home for the weekends and summer. What the HELL ARE THE FOOD CUPONS FOR? My argument is if you gave them actual food the mothers could not trade this food as easily for crack cocaine or cigarettes or booze and the children would have food. The Government would not have to waste billions on unnecessary food for kids the parents were not feeding!

President Eisenhower lived in the pre technology age and as such could not possibly assess what would be needed to deter future enemies. I contend Ronald Regan saved the world from the Soviet Union with his Star Wars Technology. That is the only thing that keeps the Mongrels from the east from overrunning the world once again and the Muslim Jihadist from blowing us all back into the Stone Age. I do not agree with huge cuts in Defense and neither should you!

Charles if you are saying I somehow morphed from a Capitalist into a Republican by your; “this series is almost becoming "in the mind of a Republican", remark I contend it always has been that. Only Republicans are Capitalists, Democrats in this country have long since sold their hearts and souls to the socialists! George Soros is the main puppeteer of the Democratic Party!

Charles here is where we part company once again; you see the essence of evil in this world as being the Greedy Capitalists that refuse to redistribute their wealth, I see the essence of evil is the despots that establish themselves as rulers of these countries then starve their people while they amass fortunes. You cannot help the starving people in Uganda by sending millions of relief dollars; those dollars never reach the people. The problem with the world today Charles is that most of it is run by evil people that ascend to [power on the cloud of helping the little man when in essence all they want to do is grab power in order to enrich their own war chest!

Capitalism not Socialism is the world’s last best hope for stopping these evil men!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Welcome back, patriot. And I extend all the good wishes of the season to you.

The economic and military might of the USA rescued the Western world after WW2, and has kept the West free. The essential decency of the American people has prevented the USA doing some of the things it could have done, like nuking the USSR and China in the 1940s to 1950s.

The concept of the two term limit is interesting. It should stop politics being a career. In the UK we have a system where in practice all the party leaders have been in and around politics all their adult lives. I said to one (Socialist) Minister that I would feel happier about the Labour government if any of them had ever run a business and had had to meet a payroll. He fairly pointed out that if he had gone down that career path he would not have had the length of service and political experience to become a Minister.

One disadvantage of the American system is that each Administration brings in senior people who have little or no administrative asnd political experience, so the first six months are littered with mistakes based on their inexperience.

The obvious question is why is there so much duplication and waste in government. We suffer from it over here, too. In our navy we now have more admirals than ships!

But it is not just in government, large industries and companies suffer from people trying to justify their existence gatting in the way of people doing the job.

It may be that your definition of socialism is wider and softer than mine. I regard Obama and the last Labour Government as progressive rather than socialist. The watermark of socialism for me is whether the administration or government concerned is using the resources of society to improve life for the bottom half of society.

I have the impression that "socialist" is an all purpose insult, and you are a little shaken by someone who is proud to describe himself as a socialist.

I agree with you that people should not be standing round holding out their hands. They should be joining hands and working together for what they need. Whether this is economically or politically will be their decision based on what choices they perceive they have.

I have offered you an attractive tax platform that would split the rich from their less rich and poor political allies in both political parties, and you have been very unwilling to embrace fair taxes.

You have not really denied that there is a military industrial complex that is hugely powerful.

Your answer on using the wealth of the world to change the world is that it would be difficult because of corruption. I am not clear whether you want to improve the world.


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles; thanks for the acknowledgement regarding the decency of the American people; I for one believe it did take a lot of restraint to beat back the USSR and China through basically peaceful means. Thank God for Ronald Wilson Reagan!

I don’t agree with your conclusion regarding the experienced Minister; the problem over here is just that. The politicians stay long enough in Washington to learn how the system works so they can load up the various bills with Pork so they in turn can bring the bacon home to their various districts!

I am with you on the point wherein I would feel happier about the government if any of them had ever run a business and had had to meet a payroll. These current clowns we have in power have never held a private sector job.

Again we disagree regarding our systems; the less political experience one has the better qualified he or she is to serve the people in my opinion. Less Government is Better Government as far as I’m concerned.

Charles, beauracries are riddled with duplication. Government is all about each entity building its’ individual silo so as to protect its existence. These entities become self sustaining, self serving and self perpetuating. They become very good at justifying their existence by somehow linking themselves to the plight of the poor. The duplication as well as most of the waste in this government relates to Social Programs as I’ve repeatedly pointed out.

You couldn’t be further from the truth regarding how American industries and companies function. Management continually has to justify its existence in order to satisfy the stockholders who are actually the owners of the company while workers merely show up and screw up under the protective umbrella of the union!

You accurately define Socialism but as I’ve continually contended those that rise to power under the auspices of Socialism do so in order to cease power. Once in power they govern in order to remain in power. Obama is steadfastly destroying this country’s economy by scaring the hell out of business. He publically critics them for functioning in the manner they were intended to function; i.e. work towards making a profit. Then he forms the most anti business administration in the history of this country; works to pass legislation which drives business overseas; Cap and Trade, Card Check, Health Care or Obama Care which is nothing more than the government taking over 1/16 of this economy and on and on and on. He extends unemployment benefits ad-infinitum so as to disincentives workers and pushes to keep corporate income taxes the highest among the western world. If he isn’t purposely attempting to destroy the American economy then he is indeed the perfect storm of anti American evolution!

You are indeed the only Socialist I’ve ever known; through hub pages or otherwise that is proud of his beliefs. Socialists over here have long since given up the label replacing it with first Liberalism then Progressive. Sorry my friend but under whichever banner you choose to fly I reject its’ principles!

Charles I am for throwing out our present tax code and taxing everyone the same flat rate; what’s hard to understand about that. The rich would pay more under that but the so called poor would also have a stake in the applicable rate which would keep it as low as possible for everyone. What is so difficult for you to grasp regarding that proposal!

I am not obsessed as you seem to be with improving the world. I believe the best chance for the world still lies with a sovereign powerful Capitalistic United States of America. There will always be despots; such is the nature of the human existence. But since 1776 there has been a force for good in this world known as the United States of America. If we survive this present assault from within we will always be there for those people that wish to rise up and throw off the shackles of dictators worldwide.

Happy New Year my friend!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Happy New Year Patriot

There have always been people who work their way up whatever political system is operating. In every political party, of whatever colour or religion or political belief, there are people who are mainly there to serve themselves. "Pork barrel politics" may be an American term, but it existed long before the USA was an independent country. It also existed before socialism became a coherent philosophy.

It was never my intention to become rich. I an sufficiently confident of my abilities that if I had set out to become rich I would have succeeded. So why should I be jealous of people who travelled that road?

To me socialism is such a rational way of working that I am constantly amused at capitalists. One wonderful example of capitalism at work is during the 19th century two competing groups of capitalists each built a railway from London to Newcastle upon Tyne. Why not cooperate?

The casino that is the City of London and Wall Street is not a rational way of allocating investment capital. While I admire Warren Buffet as successful at what he does, and I enjoy his sense of humour, it seems that he has got rich by exploiting the gap between values assigned to shares by the Stock Market and the underlying realities. In a perfect market that should not be possible. Wall Street is a long way off perfect.

You seem to have a significant problem around taxation. It has only been with considerable effort that I have got you to agree to taxing inherited wealth and the income from inherited wealth. In fact I am, not totally sure I have succeeded there.

I have accepted your "citizenship" argument that everyone should contribute something to the state. I have not yet got you to "from each according to his ability" but I am working on it. I think you call that "progressive taxation".

You have not really come to terms with the outflow of cash from government and the way that companies milk the state and support politicians who support high spending on Defence and other areas. You need to find a way to fund politics so the capitalists do not own even one party.

I apologise for calling you a Republican. I did not mean to insult you. That you support what you see as the least bad option does not make you their committed supporter.

And I am sorry you do not want to improve the world. Even improving the USA would be a start.


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles

As I’ve said so many times before you are not the typical Socialist; in a sense you are one of the few idealists whose head seems to be screwed on correctly. Our basic difference is that to me, Socialism by its’ definition acts as the impediment to people working their way up. But maybe our disagreement stems from our individual perception of what working your way up means. To me it is about acquiring more material possessions. I started as one of four sons from a modest railroad family. My father was a union member and provided a decent life for us but had I not gone to college I would not have been able to acquire the material possessions I now have. Those possessions are extremely important to me and I resent anyone who contends I am not entitled to them.

You say you went to university and became a lawyer. As I previously pointed out in a Socialist Society some professions have more intrinsic value than others. Yours happens to be one that is valued in a Socialist Society. As such you could have acquired much more wealth than you say you have. But, and here comes the BIG BUT, either way regardless of your acquired wealth your Socialist Society believes it is entitled to take from you what they believe is their share even though they contributed nothing towards your ability to earn it. OK you did get the free education but I would say you have paid them back in spades for that.

We may not have invented Pork in this country but I contend our politicians have elevated it to an art form. Still Pork by any other name is just as Fowl!

The fact you say you are not jealous of people who; as you put it have travelled that road to riches says a lot about you. You are not the typical Socialists for those in my country that claim to be Socialists or Progressives or Liberals resent the hell out of me having anything; their entire political fortunes rest on them convincing the have nots that I don’t deserve what I have. I never could understand how making people settle for less so that those that have more will loses some of what they have is a successful political strategy yet those that have governed us for the past 2 years have done just that. The country as a whole is much worse off yet still Class Warfare is their rallying cry!

Again we are diametrically opposed regarding the rationale behind Socialism; individuals are endowed by a divine creator to excel if allowed to pursue their dreams and (this is extremely important) enjoy the fruits of their endeavor once that dream has been achieved. No one ever fought and died willingly for Socialism yet there have been many fine young men and women willing to risk their lives over the course of history to defend a way of life which allowed themselves and their families to achieve a better tomorrow; one in which they benefit from the fruits of their own labor and are not forced to share it with some tyrannical king; political despot or the masses!

Regarding you railway from London to Newcastle upon Tyne example; cooperation to the Socialists in this country means spreading the wealth; not spreading the work! As for Warren Buffet, I wish I had his talent for exploiting the gap between values assigned to shares by the Stock Market and the underlying realities. And Charles there is no such thing as a perfect market; I kinda like the way Wall Street works!

Charles lest the misunderstanding continue; I am for taxing all types of wealth! What I am not in favor of is the disparity between those of us that pay taxes and the leeches in this society that pay none. Everyone should pay taxes; everyone should not only pay but everyone should pay the same rate! That is my position, plain and simple; everyone pays and everyone pays the same rate!

Charles you will never move me to "from each according to his ability"; and no I don’t call it "progressive taxation"; I call it down right stealing, extortion; robbery; get the message!

We are in agreement on one principle; finding a way to fund politics so not only the capitalists; but the Unions; the minorities and any other special interest group owns even one party. My solution is plain and simple; TERM LIMITS! Do not allow Career Politicians to come into existence; 6 years in the senate and 4 years in the house then off with their heads.

I am a Republican so no apology is necessary; but I am first and foremost a Conservative and despise a rogue Republican more than I despise a Liberal Democrat. With a Liberal Democrat you know what you’re getting; with a rogue Republican you get a Democrat in Republicans clothing!

We can agree the world needs improving; it’s just how we go about it, that’s where we differ!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Patriot

We have worked together over 100+ posts to tease out our points of agreement and disagreement. There is a value in rational discussion and mutual respect.

One difficulty with this discussion is that the USA has been so anti-socialist for so long that the history people are taught becomes distorted. When you say that no-one ever fought and died willingly for socialism, you lose sight of the millions who have died fighting for socialism. In the USSR Civil War which lasted until 1920 many died fighting for a Socialist or Communist Russia. The Abraham Lincoln Brigade was Americans who went to Spain to fight against Fascism and many died there. The International Brigade was Socialists and Communists. And of course many Spanish died.

In the USA people have died organising trade unions. They may not have died willingly but they knew death was a strong liklihood. And of course all the people killed by or on behalf of the CIA holding down the Left all over the world. People do put their lives on the line for more than the acquisition of material possessions for themselves.

You may be aware that in the American Declaration of Independence "the pursuit of happiness" was changed from

the original draft "the pursuit of property".

Thomas Paine was a socialist, writing "THe Rights of Man".

I have been reading about the English Civil War for part of my "Socialism 101" series of hubs (none published yet). I was not previously aware of the intellectual contribution to radical thought by individuals from the American colonies.

I do not dispute that you have worked really hard for your money. You resent that other people want you to share it.

No-one ever wants to pay taxes. When that is coupled to a feeling that a lot of the tax money is wasted and frittered and in some cases is spent to the detriment of society, an emotional wave like the Tea Party will occur.

The USA is so large in the world's society and economy that improvement of the USA has resonances throughout the world. That a majority white country could elect a black President sent a signal to the entire world that despite some of the people in it, the USA electorate is not racist. That did the USA a lot of good.

Electing Colin Powell or Condaleeza Rice would have done just as well.

There has never been an American President who is beyond criticism. As soon as you have the power to make decisions you make decisions that someone does not like.

I do not like the present Government of the UK, but at least they have the power to do what they think is right. In due course the electorate will throw out one bunch of rogues and put in another.

I have been horrified the way the "checks and balances" in the USA system have worked. As you explained the mortgages scandal to me the opposition Democrats were able to wreck the world economy under a Republican administration. That simply cannot happen in the UK system.

A difficulty with the "one term" proposal is that most people cannot afford financially to take a four year or two year break from their normal career. Those able to put themselves forward will tend to be the wealthy - which is a bit undemocratic.

What about a lottery like the US military draft?

I know you think that everyone paying the same tax rate is fair. If you take away all the tax shelters it may seem fair. But if you combine that with a sales tax there is a problem. The poor tend to consume all they earn, whereas the rich can usually save some of their income. The poor are paying income tax on all they earn, and then sales tax when they spend the rest, paying a higher proportion of their income in tax than the rich.

I actually support a consumption tax, but I would "even it out" with a progressive income tax.

Engels devised the slogan "From each according to his ability - to each according to his need". Do you disagree with either sentiment?


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles

As I understand history; except for the United States of America every time We the People rose up against tyranny they replaced a monarchy of some sort with socialism. You accurately referenced the Russian Revolution which was spawned from Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin’s vision for a fair more equitable world.

As a product of American Education I personally do not feel our historical view of Socialism has necessarily been negatively skewed. As I see it; history is what it is! Again I point out there never has been a Socialist Regime that has governed in the best interest of the people. They engage in subterfuge and obfuscation in order to gain power promising the people a better life when all they ever end up with; the people that is, is less of a life than they had before while the Socialist Perpetrators gain unlimited power. So I’m sorry my friend we will never agree on the merits of Socialism because in concept it may represent an altruistic paradise but in actuality it is nothing more than Dante’s Inferno for mankind!

I am so glad you chose to reference that part of our Declaration of Independence "the pursuit of happiness"; even though you attempt to cast disparity upon it by your pursuit of the property reference. I too would like to address that one line in our Declaration of Independence for to me it is the defining difference between a society based of freedom and Capitalism and one based on repression and Socialism. We in the United States of America do not live in an equal outcome based nation. Our Declaration of Independence does not say ……. We are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the Acquisition of happiness; no our Declaration of Independence promises us the Right to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness! Therein lies the difference in our philosophy and why Liberals/Socialists/Progressives in this country hate the constitution so much!

Charles, I recognize taxes are a necessary part of a civilized society. But just like the original Tea Party resulted from the actions of a Tyrannical Regime imposing its’ will on the early colonials so this modern day tea party resulted for a tyrannical regime imposing it’s will upon the modern day 50 colonial states. This tea party is the result of Cap and Trade, Obama Care, General Motors and Chrysler Take over’s to save unions, the takeover of banks and insurance companies all over the objection of the American People.

I personally resent your racial reference. I despise Barrack Hussein Obama; not because he’s half black but because he is all Socialists in the radical sense. He hates this country and is governing it in such a manner so as to punish it for what he sees as its’ sins. I would willingly vote for Condoleezza Rice if she would run; as for Collin Powell; not a chance. He is no conservative but a maverick. He claims to be a fiscal conservative but a social liberal. My contention is that incongruency cannot exist; simply put how do you pay for your liberal social programs when you are a fiscal conservative?

Charles our checks and balances work just fine when allowed to function on a level playing field. The Democrat Socialists learned a while back in order to negate our balances on the right all they had to do was inject racism into the argument. That’s how they were able to proliferate the mortgage scandal which wrecked the world economy under a Republican administration while they were in the minority status. But part of the time they controlled both houses of congress from 2006 through 2008.

I agree my "one term" proposal was a bit overzealous; they should be allowed 2 terms in the senate and up to 5 terms in the House; that’s 12 years for a senator and 10 for a congressman. Don’t you agree they should be able to steal enough to live on in that amount of time?

You see our founding fathers never intended Public Service to be a lifelong career. It was intended for people so inclined that wished to serve their country to take a few years off from their profession in order to serve their country. I know in my case my company granted leaves of absence for all sorts of reason; in fact our current CEO took a 2 year leave of absence way back during his fledgling years with the company to go to Harvard Business School and get his MBA.

Sorry Charles but I will not come off my tax position; everyone must be equally vested in order to keep those paying less to push for more from those already paying more. We already pay a consumption tax; it’s called a sales tax! As for your reference to the slogan "From each according to his ability - to each according to his need"; I am vehemently opposed to that premise in its entirety!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

I hope you will forgive me teasing you with "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Every family works on this basis. Most kids need to be taught to contribute as a lesson on the path to adulthood. I remember asking my then teenage lad "Who do you think should clear up after your friends have been round?" After a bit of thought he said "Me" - and started clearing up.

I hoped you would agree that taxes should be "fair", even if we have then difficulty agreeing what "fair" is.

A consumption tax is by its nature regressive. I support it because taxing income always has a disincentive effect, and because people have some discretion over their spending. But I would balance that with a progressive tax regime.

You are not saying that you would abolish sales tax. If you combine a regressive sales tax with a "level" income tax you end up taxing the poor a higher proportion of their income than you would tax the rich. I don't think you can really call that "fair".

The second leg, "to each according to his need", is important, but I disagree with taking that leg first. Always start with the first leg. But once the first leg is dealt with, "to each according to his need" can be discussed.

You and I have made provision for our old age, and could get by without support from the state. I agree there are people who have wasted huge amounts of money over their lives, and are now utterly dependent on the state. (Is this an argument for higher income and consumption taxes???)

But there are many people who have not been profligate. They never earned much, and really had no chance to save for old age. If they do not have families to support them, they desperately need support from the state.

Medical issues can cripple a person or family financially. I gather that about one third of Americans have no health insurance. In England all workers are taxed and there is a reasonable Health system for all, consuming a much smaller proporetion of GDP than the US. If everyone actually had adequate health care in the USA health would take up abnearly a quarter of your GDP! Our system broadly works. For about a third of your society there is an unsatisfactory situation.

It is interesting how you (and many Americans) perceive the Boston Tea Party. Britain was in the middle of a long war against France. The American colonies were protected against French raiders by the Royal Navy. New taxes were invented during this war, including a "temporary" measure called "income tax". One of those taxes had an unfortunate economic impact on the East India Company, which imported tea from Indis. The tax made it uncompetitive against the Dutch. So the tax was changed, but the total amount raised stayed the same.

The tax change made no net difference to the American colonists. They seized on the "new" tax as an issue because they were already arguing that the State could not tax without consent. Had they been living in England, wealthy merchants would have had a vote, but no-one in the colonies had a vote in British elections. At that time most British did not have a vote either.

So the Boston Tea Party was dressed up as a political protest against a "new" tax, when the "new" tax was just a change in the way a tax income was generated. Merchants never like paying taxes, and of course taxes were high because there was a long running war. It was typical behavior of the American rich, trying to evade their responsibilities to society. They wanted the benefits of Defence but did not want to pay their fair contribution. Dressed up as political principle of course.

During the discussions for the proposed American discussion these same rich merchants, who had argued "no taxation without representation", were initially opposed to all free men having the vote. They wanted a property qualification.

You seem to be enormously touchy on race. I suppose if I were perpetually being called a racist I would be touchy, too. I was saying that the election of a black President had shown that the American electorate are not racist. You have said that you personally would be happy to vote for Condaleeza Rice. I have never suggested that you are racist. I gather many on the Left in the USA have said the anti Obama hysteria has a racist origin. The same people who are hysterical about Obama were and are equally virulent against the Clintons who are of course white. The basic objection to the Clintons and Obama are that they are perceived as Red.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Sorry for two slight typos. In the second to last paragraph the end of the first line should read "proposed American Constitution".

And higher up "abnearly" should read "nearly",


wba108@yahoo.com profile image

wba108@yahoo.com 5 years ago from upstate, NY

Terrific insights and information! I think that socialists and liberals resent the success of others, jealousy as we know can be pretty ugly and distort your mind. Focusing on the faults of the free market only causes people to ignore the fact that its brought about great advances! Good point that there is virtually no social mobility in a socialist system. Opportunities abound in the free market but a socialist economy is destined for debt and stagnation. Another problem I see with socialism is the encouragement of an entitlement mentality that breeds resentment and immaturity.


Partisan Patriot 5 years ago Author

wba

Great point; the free market has brought about great advances and thanks for acknowledging there is no upward mobility in a socialist system. Finally you couldn’t be more right on when you said the other problem I see with socialism is the encouragement of an entitlement mentality that breeds resentment and immaturity; this could not have been more apparent than what has happened for the past two years.

Thanks for the visit and I hope to see more of you around here.


Partisan Patriot 5 years ago Author

Charles

Long time no opine; sorry for my absence but I’ve been a bit busy publishing two more hubs and preparing for my next class I teach for my former employer; but enough of that; on with the debate!

I took no offense to your teasing; after all this time I find it difficult to get mad at you; I still vehemently disagree with your philosophy but you as an individual I like.

I guess I miss the connection between cleaning up and taxes. I do agree taxes should be "fair", it’s just as you put it we have difficulty agreeing what "fair" is. To me fair is predicated upon how my taxes are being spent. If the money is spent on programs I support and I see some apparent good coming from the programs then I will not protest as much over a few % points. If, however as is the present case in my country, this Regime is wasting all the money it extorts from me and then criticizes, me calling me selfish for not opening my wallet and allowing them to steal more! I’ve pointed out before how money is being wasted on the same people through a variety programs; i.e. the school lunch programs are duplicitous with welfare payments; that and the fact there is never any accountability associated with these programs!

As for your consumption tax philosophy; I agree it is somewhat regressive. I would support exempting some basic staples from it so as to allow the poorest amongst us some relief. I would then couple the consumption tax with a flat tax that would be imposed on each and every citizen; only then would every citizen be equally invested in keeping government spending cut and the flat rate low!

Sorry Charles but I’ll never buy into the "to each according to his need" argument. The problem with that philosophy is once “to each is given what they need” they never move off the government dole. I believe in the old adage; give a man a fish and he eats for a day but teach a man to fish and he eats for life; let’s start teaching and quit giving!

Those that did not make provision for our old age should be taken care of. That’s not the problem over here with our busted entitlement programs; it’s those that are not elderly; that could provide for themselves; they are the ones that must be removed from the government dole. As I have pointed out many times before; there are those amongst us; all supporters of this Regime; that have learned how to manipulate the system so well they collect huge sums of money by engaging in certain types of behavior; i.e. having more and more illegitimate children.

Charles; your figures are way off base. Most Americans have health insurance. Most of the uninsured are young 20 to 30 year olds who like in your country I’m sure; are bullet proof and given the option choose not to have health insurance. This Regime seized upon a few misfortunate cases to parade them out in front of the camera in order to build their case for Government Takeover 1/16 of our economy. The enormous cost associated with healthcare over here stems directly from one segment of this society; that segment is one of the main supporters of the present Regime; the Trial Lawyers. They have so manipulated the courts into providing enormous awards in malpractice cases Drs. Are forced to prescribe unnecessary test after unnecessary test in order to protect them from Malpractice suits. That’s what has driven up healthcare case and yes; that wasn’t addressed in this Obamination we now have known as Obama Care!

Charles you had me for a moment there with your history lesson surrounding the Boston Tea Party. I had never heard it explained from that position then you had to go and add; “It was typical behavior of the American rich, trying to evade their responsibilities to society. They wanted the benefits of Defense but did not want to pay their fair contribution. Dressed up as political principle of course.” I assume this is your position today and that’s where we part company. The American Rich owe nothing to the collective world. They have financed wars which have freed people throughout the world. America is rich because we live in a society that rewards ingenuity and innovation. Our ingenuity and innovation has benefited mankind worldwide. I’m sorry there are people starving in Africa; it’s not my fault and if we send boatloads of money over there it will never reach the people. Those that preside over starving people tend to be such insidious cruel people they don’t give a rat’s rear end about the people over which they rule. So called American greed is not the cause of world hunger!

Charles, if we still had the property qualification in order to vote; we would be a much better country today!

As for racism; I am so sick of it being used as a defense mechanism by those completely devoid of thought that the mere mention of it does enrage me! I also resent the assumption that the only way we can prove we are not racist is to elect a Black President who is himself devoid of any qualifications necessary to govern effectively.

Now we can end on a note of agreement; the basic objection to the Clintons and Obama are that they are perceived as Red; that my friend is well said!


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Welcome back! I have been quite grateful for the slowing down of the pace of our discussions because I have been working on the final final editing of my book. I am waiting for the proof copy to arrive in the post. It is my first book so I am quite excited.

Most people do not like paying tax. If you feel your tax dollars are wasted you feel even more resentment. And if you feel the tax system is weighted against you your resentment will be even greater.

I have been reading a fascinating book "The Unknown American Revolution" by Gary B. Nash published in the USA by Viking Penguin. It seems that one of the trigger issues was lands occupied by the Native Americans. The Crown had signed treaties with the Indian tribes, which it was not willing to tear up. George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry were among the speculators in Indian lands.

It seems that most of the wealthy and middling avoided military service, and most of the fighting and dying was done by the poor and landless. The determination of the rich to avoid paying according to their means was as strong then as it is now.

Thank you for agreeing to exempt staples from sales tax. If there is any form of sales tax it is still regressive.

What you have carefully avoided discussing is the interplay between companies that sell to the US Government and who then financially support politicians who approve high government spending. When the military people who approve the contracts retire into lucrative consultancies with these same suppliers, the circle of potential corruption is complete. The military industrial complex wastes your tax dollars - but you do not seem to mind.

We seem agreed that greedy medical negligence lawyers are not good for society. I assume you are politically opposed to public interest lawyers doing this work for low fees, so what do you suggest?

And you seem to not really be interested in a campaign to make those who have inherited wealth pay their fair share. It seems to me that as probably 98% of Americans are never going to inherit much the campaign could work. Then if the rich Democrats are paying their fair share they may be more interested in good governance.

And in respect of President Obama, anyone who can beat the Clintons in securing the Democratic nomination must be a pretty effective politician. To go on to win a Presidential election suggests he has something going for him.

If you could rewrite the American Constitution, what would your criteria for President be?


partisan patriot 5 years ago

Charles here's a little poem

Tax his land,

Tax his bed,

Tax the table

At which he's fed.

Tax his work,

Tax his pay,

He works for peanuts

Anyway!

Tax his cow,

Tax his goat,

Tax his pants,

Tax his coat.

Tax his tobacco,

Tax his drink,

Tax him if he

Tries to think.

Tax his car,

Tax his gas,

Find other ways

To tax his ass.

Tax all he has

Then let him know

That you won't be done

Till he has no dough.

When he screams and hollers;

Then tax him some more,

Tax him till

He's good and sore.

Then tax his coffin,

Tax his grave,

Tax the sod in

Which he's laid.

When he's gone,

Do not relax,

It's time to apply

The inheritance tax.

Accounts Receivable Tax

Airline surcharge tax

Airline Fuel Tax

Airport Maintenance Tax

Building Permit Tax

Cigarette Tax

Corporate Income Tax

Death Tax

Dog License Tax

Driving Permit Tax

Environmental Tax (Fee)

Excise Taxes

Federal Income Tax

Federal Unemployment (UI)

Fishing License Tax

Food License Tax

Gasoline Tax (too much per litre)

Gross Receipts Tax

Health Tax

Hunting License Tax

HydroTax

Inheritance Tax

Interest Tax

Liquor Tax

Luxury Taxes

Marriage License Tax

Medicare Tax

Mortgage Tax

Personal Income Tax

Property Tax

Poverty Tax

Prescription Drug Tax

Provincial Income and Sales tax

Real Estate Tax

Recreational Vehicle Tax

Retail Sales Tax

Service Charge Tax

School Tax

Telephone Federal Tax

Telephone Federal, Provincial and Local Surcharge Taxes

Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax

Vehicle License Registration Tax

Vehicle Sales Tax

Water Tax

Watercraft Registration Tax

Well Permit Tax

Workers Compensation Tax

--- and in 2010 the HST

Not one of these taxes existed 60 years ago, & our nation was one of the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had a large middle class, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids.

More serious commentary to follow later.


Charles James profile image

Charles James 5 years ago from Yorkshire, UK

Ditty For Ditty

This ditty was originally written by an American, and the words were then changed slightly in England.

"The golf course lies beside the mill

And on a sunny day

The little children at their work

Can see the men at play."


trimar7 profile image

trimar7 5 years ago from New York

Gentlemen - thank you for the bantar discussion. It has given me much to think about. although I must admit I feel like one of my students when I sway them to one way of thinking and then to another to create thinkers not conformers. I must say that government is very confusing and I am still VERY confused - which is okay - as I said the goal is to get people actively thinking not necessarily conforming.


partisan patriot 5 years ago

trimar

Thanks for visiting our back and forth; James is the first Socialist I've ever been able to carry on an intelligent conversation with; most likely because he thinks with his brain and not his heart. I hope you gained something from our back and forth!


Jason Baudendistel 5 years ago

I actually really enjoyed this discussion I am a proud Moderate but I can respect both sides of the fence.


Partisan Patriot 5 years ago Author

Jason

Thanks for visiting my hub and commenting; hope to see more of you around here.

    Sign in or sign up and post using a HubPages Network account.

    0 of 8192 characters used
    Post Comment

    No HTML is allowed in comments, but URLs will be hyperlinked. Comments are not for promoting your articles or other sites.


    Click to Rate This Article
    working