jump to last post 1-11 of 11 discussions (110 posts)

Why is capitalism good and socialism evil?

  1. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 17 months ago

    Does capitalism encourage greed? Does socialism punish merit and efficiency? Or do both philosophies have good and bad aspects?

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      While both have good and bad aspects, socialism kills motivation and efficiency and can never produce a vibrant economy.

      In practice a mix of both seems the best choice.

      1. promisem profile image94
        promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I see your comments fairly often on forum postings and had the impression you were a conservative. Apparently I was wrong!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          On the whole, an economic conservative, socially a liberal.  The conservative party in the US left me behind when they decided that the country would be required to follow their religious rules, but at the same time the liberals are so short-sighted economically that I can't agree with them either.

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            It sounds like you are a libertarian, which has its own share of strengths and challenges as an ideology.

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Possibly.  As a party I've never looked at them (not interested in voting a party, just an individual), but it might be true.  Others have said the same thing.

      2. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Whilst I'd disagree with the first part of your statement I would agree with the second half.

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          That, John, is because you and I have a different view of socialism.  Your's has morphed into that mix that we both think is necessary, but actual socialism does not contain any capitalism at all.

      3. 61
        retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

        What aspect of a centrally directed, compulsory system is good enough to incorporate into a nimble, decentralized, free will, price regulated free market system?

        1. A Thousand Words profile image80
          A Thousand Wordsposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Free will? Hardly. Maybe in it's "pure" days. The greed that drives Capitalism, however, quickly aims to take that "free will" away from all but a few.

          Capitalism is a machine that perpetuates itself. If left unbridled, it could -- no -- it is spelling disaster.

          I started a forum on the topic of Capitalism over a year ago. I'll pull a little from my posts then.

          "The same system that is fueled by greed, the strong desire for more: an overwhelming desire to have more of something such as money than is actually needed, is slowly pushing all of the wealth into the upper class. The poor are becoming poorer, the middle class is disappearing. Everyone's ready to blame the individual, but individuals that don't know what the hell to do are a SYMPTOM of a broken society! Everybody wants to put blame ONLY on the individual. No one is saying that to a certain extent, we all aren't responsible for our decisions. BUT the society is just as responsible.

          What's being taught in our schools? How are things being advertised? Why do advertisements work? People are sheep! To say that the herders have no fault over the actions of the sheep is preposterous! Corporations understand the mentality of people. That's what they play on to make more money! If the school systems don't teach the kids how to be smart and vigilant, how to be aware, how to be their own person, how to fight for what they want, and then these same children become parents and teachers, and the children under them aren't being taught, how the hell are they supposed to know?"

          "You have to understand that even though this may not always apply to small business, big businesses/corporations are the only thing that matter BECAUSE the most people are affected by it. Back to health insurance. People have to pay for insurance, but if they become terminally ill, the companies don't want to pay for it. Forget it if you're already terminally ill; good luck finding any. Health insurance shouldn't even be a business. But at the end of the day, it's about how much money they can make because the people behind the financial decisions couldn't give a rats ass about the people getting the coverage. They majored in finance and business, not social work. They care about MONEY. That's what they think matters. That's what they're taught matters. People are no longer people, they become tools needed to make a dollar. THAT's the problem with being motivated by profits.

          Look at the food industry. I mean what the hell? Food is an industry? That is THE most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. Food is a basic necessity for every human being to survive. We're under the illusion that we can grow it and sell it to other people because we own it? LoL, we can "own" food? Look at Monsanto. Do you know who they are? They are the company that basically owns the gmo corn industry. Every time you see an ingredient in processed food that's some derivative of corn, or you buy corn that doesn't say non-GMO, it's 80-90% likely it came from Monsanto. (Insert: they also created roundup-resistant soybeans) Do you know what's illegal? It's illegal for you to sue Monsanto even if you become ill by one of their products. This video is from 2013, but this bill has been continued,

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABsyhLbFfM8#t=82

          You can look at every facet of how our nation works, and see how the greed that easily follows capitalistic thinking has corrupted those things that were maybe once good. Capitalism isn't the whole problem. But the greed that it becomes a vehicle for is. Capitalism with MANY, MANY more checks and balances and A LOT more accountability can work."

          As these are posts from previous discussions, of course there's probably some missing context, but you see where I'm going. If I had the time I go through and shorten I would, but I need to head of to sleep.

          1. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            You have confused a price regulated free market, capitalist(Marxist clap trap term, that) with a system routinely corrupted and twisted by government interventionism. Why have organic and gluten free sections of the grocery store exploded in the past 5 years? Because the customer dictates. Why are automobile manufacturers dropping v8s in favor of v6s with better gas mileage? Customer demand? Why are newspapers fading and internet news surging? Why is cable television on the cusp of collapse? Every market is driven by customer demands, except those protected by or created by government.

        2. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
          Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          +1

        3. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Dunno, but where is that "nimble, decentralised, free will, price regulated free market system"?
          All we have is a clunking centralised price fixed restricted market with no free will at all.

          1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
            Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            How so "clunking?"  and how so "no free will?" yikes ?

          2. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            You're right, but it is your own fault that's all you have.  Kick out the socialists and you will have the other.  I'd say you could look to the US for it, but we've followed your steps too long in a misguided, short sighted effort at altruism that instead only creates slaves.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              There has not been an even remotely socialist government in the UK since 1979. There haven't even been enough socialist MPs to have any influence.

              Altruism, you jest, but we are now a nation of slaves to capitalism.

              1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                @ John Holden:
                1. How so "clunking?" 
                2. How so "no free will?"
                3. How so "slaves to capitalism?"
                - specifics and examples would be most appreciated!

                ( If you have already done this in previous posts, never mind... I'll go back and read them.)

              2. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                We are becoming slaves to the politicians because we want more than we produce, the politicians are more than willing to trade our votes for wants paid for by others, and we are foolish enough to go along with them. 

                The UK culture is far more socialistic than, for instance, the US.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  No, we are becoming slaves to our government because they expect us to work for nothing.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    If that's what the product of your labor is worth you should expect nothing in return for it.  Including free (or subsidized) food, housing, utilities, health care, phones or anything else.

                    Simply being alive does not give you the right to anything but that guaranteed by your government.  In the US "Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness".  None of the other stuff.

          3. 61
            retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Thank you lefty government.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              Where?

              1. 61
                retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Everywhere - the diminution of the individual as sovereign is and continues to be the goal of the left. The great Minuet between over reaching, avaricious, greedy, massive, intrusive government and the bloated businesses who crave the rewards those governments offer destroys real free markets and real individual liberty.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  There are no major countries in the world with a socialist government or a socialist agenda.

                  Your answer, whilst blaming the left, points the finger firmly at the right.

                  1. 61
                    retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    I said nothing of socialist. The centrally directed economy is not a conservative notion, on the contrary, it is a central tenet of leftist economic ideas. The price regulated free market place insists on decentralization as the most effective means for allocating scarcity.

    2. tsmog profile image84
      tsmogposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      An interesting set of questions. A quote to consider regarding the US Military and socialism is "It’s the purest application of socialism there is,” Wesley Clark, the retired four-star general and former supreme allied commander of NATO forces in Europe, told me. And he was only partly joking." (Those paragons of socialism, the United States military; The Seattle Times; Nicholas Kristof; 06/15/11)

      Further he says, "“It’s a really fair system, and a lot of thought has been put into it, and people respond to it really well,” he added. The country can learn from that sense of mission, he said, from that emphasis on long-term strategic thinking."

      Does that offer a model for socialism to contrast capitalism? Being a military brat for some 20 years (parent active service) I see the parallels. I wonder if that is why I have a strong entrepreneural spirit while supportive of our military. Easily a Hub could be written on that subject especially with the military brat experience. Consider the U.S. Military as a socialist government existing within a modified capitalist economy.

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry but the comparison of the military with socialism does not work at all.

        To suggest that it does shows a lack of understanding of what socialism is.

        1. tsmog profile image84
          tsmogposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Unsure of your meaning since socialism seems so vast from my understanding. However, the article is pretty interesting and intriguing. That perspective is written on extensively.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            The thing is that the military can not work without a hierarchy. Hierarchy is anathema to socialism

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              An anathema to socialism?  How can that be when government provides everything from housing to income?  While the theory may be that everyone is equal, that will always be nonsense when someone else is making the decisions governing your life.

    3. rhamson profile image77
      rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Much like our country the two push and pull at their core definitions. While capitalism is the exploitation of or creation of an advantage, socialism strives to make up the difference through standardization and equalization of that advantage. Where it goes wrong is when the two go to extremes and come up with wacky schemes to undermine the other.

    4. A Thousand Words profile image80
      A Thousand Wordsposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Both have good and bad aspects, but many in America refuse to accept that. "Socialist pig!" <- An insult in this country.

  2. janesix profile image60
    janesixposted 17 months ago

    Socialism isn't evil.

    1. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Is it then good? If so, why is it good?

      1. janesix profile image60
        janesixposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        It's good to take care of those who can't take care of themselves.

        1. GA Anderson profile image86
          GA Andersonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Is it also good to take care of those that won't take care of themselves?

          GA

          1. promisem profile image94
            promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Absolutely not. But do you agree it's good to take care of those who can't take care of themselves?

        2. 61
          retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

          That is a moral good, is it the province of politics and economics or of personal moral action?

  3. ahorseback profile image51
    ahorsebackposted 17 months ago

    One would have to explain just how socialism, as traditionally defined , actually  maintains  a continually  self supporting economy .   That is , without extremely high or at least much  higher taxation .

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Taxation is a capitalist concept.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Possibly true, but does it really matter whether it's called "taxes" or "profits"?  Either way the citizens are footing all the countries bills.

      2. ahorseback profile image51
        ahorsebackposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        And you don't pay taxes in a socialist country? ....... and more of them ,.Please john .!

        1. John Holden profile image60
          John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          Why should you pay more tax in a socialist country? No banks to bale out, no wages to supplement, no "welfare" for the unneeded.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Right!  Everyone keeps their money under the mattress, all $10 of it.

            1. John Holden profile image60
              John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              What!
              I don't mean banks don't exist, just that their primary function changes fro making money to holding money.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                And bail outs can't happen because the banks are owned by a government with infinite funds, so they can never run out.  Right, except it is perpetual bail out, just called a different name.

                1. John Holden profile image60
                  John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Er, no. Their are no bankers getting huge bonuses even when the bank loses money by gambling with lenders money.

                  1. wilderness profile image95
                    wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Er, yes.  Failed housing loans, are a great plus because it made people happy, which means the politician keeps his job.  So he shoves more money into the government bank making bad loans.  It just isn't called a "bailout", but maybe an "expense" and no one really knows what's happening.  And ALL money in the bank is "lenders money" as it all comes from the consumer anyway.

  4. promisem profile image94
    promisemposted 17 months ago

    "Central to the meaning of socialism is common ownership. This means the resources of the world being owned in common by the entire global population." - World Socialist Movement

    A publicly traded corporation has common ownership. In that sense, a corporation is socialist.  smile

  5. alex35aclll profile image59
    alex35aclllposted 17 months ago

    Enjoyed your article, it can be a hard subject to grasp sometimes

  6. John Holden profile image60
    John Holdenposted 17 months ago

    Widerness, for your reading-

    http://positivemoney.org/issues/recessions-crisis/
    http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/7501/ … recession/
    https://muddywatermacro.wustl.edu/node/92

    Hope that helps with your education. You'll note not a mention of socialism or even government compulsion.

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      "In the 1990's under the administration of Franklin Raines, a Clinton Administration appointee, Fannie Mae began to demand that the lending institutions that it dealt with prove that they were not redlining. This meant that the lending institutions would have to fulfill a quota of minority mortgage lending. This in turn meant that the lending agencies would have to lower their standards in terms of such things as down payments and the required incomes."

      "Having put the lending agencies into the position of granting subprime mortgages Fannie Mae then had to accept lower standards in the mortgages it purchased. That set the ball rolling. If a bank granted a mortgage to a borrower that was not likely to successfully pay off the mortgage then all the bank had to do was to sell such mortgages to Fannie Mae."

      "Because Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac made a market for subprime mortgages the lenders did not have to worry about of the soundness of the mortgage contract they wrote."

      http://www.sjsu.edu/faculty/watkins/subprime.htm

      So our government made it possible and required banks to follow suit, at no risk to themselves.  Who wouldn't?

      "The percentage of new lower-quality subprime mortgages rose from the historical 8% or lower range to approximately 20% from 2004 to 2006, with much higher ratios in some parts of the U.S"

      http://www.stat.unc.edu/faculty/cji/fys … crisis.pdf

      And the result was a far greater percentage of subprime lending, with mortgages that could not be repaid by the people getting them.  Instant default, with the result the housing bubble burst, causing a recession and more defaults.  Because a politician(s) decided the poor needed homes of their own.

      Hope that helps with your education - it's never wise to accept only the things that satisfy a perceived desire. (I noted that nowhere in your links was there any indication of WHY those loans were being made - just that they were.  While the obvious inference was greedy bankers, if you did just a little deeper a different story emerges.)

      1. John Holden profile image60
        John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Well maybe American politicians would be happy to lend money to people who couldn't afford it. They must be even more short sighted than British politicians!

        1. wilderness profile image95
          wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          I don't know - the UK seems even further down the destructive socialist road than the US is.  We're catching up, though! big_smile

          But the truth this time was that pretending we can give everyone everything, without cost, was not only doomed to failure but a failure that was catastrophic over much of the world.  If I thought we'd learned anything I'd be happier, but we haven't.  Not even clear of the fallout and we decide that everyone can have health insurance at no cost to the rest of the population.  I predict failures of clinics, hospitals and the fall of pharmaceutical companies all over the country.  As the US produces the bulk of new drugs, the rest of the world will suffer alongside of us.

          1. John Holden profile image60
            John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            "The UK seems even further down the destructive socialist road. . ."
            I'll be charitable and say that you have absolutely no idea of the political situation in the UK!

            Who provides healthcare at no cost to the rest of the population?

            1. wilderness profile image95
              wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              I get my ideas on UK political scene from you and other Brits.  I figure it's a better indication than the news.  If nothing else, everybody seems angry all the time as freebies are cut so you won't follow Greece.

              I said before that the UK can do that - y'all seem to like supporting others...

              1. John Holden profile image60
                John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Freebies to the bankers aren't being stopped.

                There are no freebies for the working man, they are all paid for.

                1. wilderness profile image95
                  wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Yes they are (paid for) - by taxing someone else.  I get that.  That it is so common is my biggest beef with socialism.

                  1. John Holden profile image60
                    John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Where is the socialism in using taxes to make the wealthy even wealthier?

  7. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    World Socialist Movement:
    "Capitalism
    The WSM takes the position that capitalism is a regressive, backwards system given modern civilizations' current level of technological and economic development, and regardless of how progressive capitalism becomes, it cannot meet the needs of the majority of the population and solve its inherent structural issues. The WSM as an organisation does not participate in labor union activity, social activism or "progressive" movements although individual members may and are permitted to do 
    so, so long as they remain within the context of economic/social rather than political activism. The WSM perceives such activity (such as support for organized labor unions) to be within the scope of the current capitalist system, and therefore insufficient for bringing about fundamental change in the structure of society because the demands of such activities are to reform capitalism.[2] The WSM is differentiated from the majority of socialist parties that have become defined by their strategy and immediate demands, and in the case of Social democratic parties, preoccupied with gaining and maintaining political office, adopting capitalist perspectives in the process.[3]"



    "Socialism
    The WSM defines socialism in its classical formulation as a "system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of the community". Socialism is characterized as a stateless, propertyless, post-monetary economy based on calculation in kind, a free association of producers (workplace democracy) and free access to goods and services produced solely for use and not for exchange.[4]"

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Socialist_Movement

  8. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Capitalism "cannot meet the needs of the majority of the population…"
    If a couple has sex and produce a baby, the rest of the population are NOT responsible for that baby's survival because the rest of the population did NOTHING to bring that baby into the world!!!
    In my mind, its not fair to say just because SOME individuals have needs, OTHER individuals have to to fulfill those needs!!!!
    Where is the justice in this thinking------->????????

    Just because someone runs out of money in old age does not mean OTHER individuals have to help him. No. His family should help him. His family.
    What is wrong with people reaping the effects of their own causes?
    Feelings of great ambition and hope, kindled by sense of urgency, inspire people to get up and go to work.
    It is human nature to sit back and let life ebb and flow with as little effort as possible.
    We cannot enable the uninspired and unworried to sit around.

    Socialism enables humans to sink to the level of slugs.

  9. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Socialism distributes wealth "by and in the interest of the community."
    And the community is more important than the individual.
    How so?
    Is group-think more real than individual thought?
    Do all minds think alike?
    Are humans like the fish swimming in schools moving every which way by some mysterious unison of inner impulse?

    If you say, Yes…
    I beg to differ.

  10. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    Humans are not slugs
    and they are not fish.
    What is a human?

    A human has a brain to use for survival along with muscles and senses. A human wants to use these powers to live, to work, to prosper. He wants to do it himself. He wants the glory of his own efforts and the failures of his own experiments. He wants the successes of lessons he has learned through his own SELF EFFORT.

    The challenges of life are naturally satisfied through freedom of market. Capitalism benefits every individual who participates in this naturally occurring network of buying and selling goods and services.

    But, without proper boundaries, capitalism can instigate blind ambition and greed in the unscrupulous.  Checks on human nature are in place: Monopoly laws. We must follow them. Furthermore: No bail outs, No bonuses, No backroom deals!

    What is the good of law?
    To protect others from the follies of the ignorant, the evil, the stupid and the egocentric.
    In short, the unscrupulous.

    "unscrupulous adjective:
    unprincipled, unethical, immoral, conscienceless, shameless, reprobate, exploitative, corrupt, dishonest, dishonorable, deceitful, devious, underhanded, unsavory, disreputable, evil, wicked, villainous, Machiavellian; crooked, shady, hinky; dastardly." Thesaurus

    Freedom within boundaries is workable. Without boundaries, freedom is lost.
    Freedom and boundaries are two sides of the same coin.
    We must not toss out the coin, thinking it is rusting away, in favor of an empty piggy bank.

  11. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
    Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago

    We can't help you, John, if you do not like to work.
    Choosing one's own work is liberty.
    A percolating economy depends on the many who like working and enjoy the results and achievements of their work.
    And INDIVIDUALS who are free to choose and who are naturally rewarded are "the many."
    Politicians do need to keep this in mind.
    If you ask me.. which no one...

    1. John Holden profile image60
      John Holdenposted 17 months ago in reply to this

      Oh but I do enjoy work. When I don't then I appreciate my work being rewarded well. When I have to do work that does not reward me in either way then I'm being exploited.

      1. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

        Exploited...by your own choice.  You would rather be exploited than go hungry and thus choose to be exploited.  No guns to the head, no whips or chains - just a choice to do even though you think it's unfair and exploitation.

        Not unsympathetic - been there myself - but that's the bottom line.  Your choice.

        1. rhamson profile image77
          rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

          "Exploited...by your own choice."

          Exploited by a government for sale and those who would profit from it.

          1. wilderness profile image95
            wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

            Now this I would agree with.  Taxation, beyond that needed to maintain the country, is exploitation and the only choice is to immigrate.  Taking what I have in order to buy votes from people wanting a free ride is exploitation, whether legal or not.

            1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
              Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              ...wouldn't it be funny if we are all actually in agreement?
              It is us against those who could care a fig about us: those politicians we elected thinking they WOULD care! (about us) HA!
              Enter anarchists!

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                I no longer vote for those that I think will do the right thing - there are none.  Now I vote for who I think will do the least amount of damage to the country.  Nearing the end of my "three score and ten", I just want a country for my grandchildren.

            2. rhamson profile image77
              rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

              And taking advantage of the citizenry through greedy,  criminally weak politicians is what has compromised the sovereignty of the country. Taxation is another issue entirely.

              1. wilderness profile image95
                wildernessposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                Negative - it has gotten to the point that taxation itself is more about greed than anything else.  Individuals wanting what they cannot afford, paid for through taxes on others, and politicians wanting the votes of those individuals, also paid for through taxes on others. 

                Taxation, instead of being the minimum needed to operate the country (with a little added to aid the unfortunate), has become an endless trough for freebies, graft, fraud and votes.  It's called greed.

                1. Kathryn L Hill profile image85
                  Kathryn L Hillposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  - wouldn't you agree, rhamson?

                  1. rhamson profile image77
                    rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Absolutely not. The perception that the government is greedy based on their own needs is ludicrous. Through the military industrial complexes influence of supporting warmongering candidates is just a small part of the ends big business will go to make a profit. These and other influences "buy" and promote their agenda to make a buck on the backs of the taxpayer. Without a greedy influence there would be no need for a greedy candidate. The candidates have only proven how willing they are to stoop to the low road to line their pockets. If anything, we are the ones at fault for the greed that runs rampant in our elected officials.

                2. 61
                  retief2000posted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  Ditto, greed doesn't mean millions and millions of dollars - just the desire to get as much as possible with as little effort as possible. You can also add in all those other evil churchy ideas like envy and sloth.

                3. promisem profile image94
                  promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  The federal budget is now 20% of GDP, according to the Federal Reserve, which is consistent with the average over the last 40 years.

                  In fact, it's even lower now than it was during the Reagan years.

                4. rhamson profile image77
                  rhamsonposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                  On the contrary increased taxes are the result of failed responsibility with the legislation and trade agreements to provide a balance between who pays taxes based on their income. The very rich pay incredibly less taxes than they did when the countries economy boomed in the fifties and sixties. The reduction and trade agreements to rob America of jobs has resulted in the difference of having to be made up somewhere.  The rich have relied on the increase of the population increases to create more of a tax base. Unfortunately the job depletion cannot make up that difference, You still hang onto that old tired line of less taxes taken from the rich will result in more jobs for the masses. It never worked and never will.

                  1. promisem profile image94
                    promisemposted 17 months ago in reply to this

                    Just as a point of reference, the top tax rate is current 39.6% From 1932 through 1986, it ranged from 50% to 91%.

                    http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxfacts … ?Docid=543

 
working