Republicans are having a hard time garnering the Minority Vote, specifically because the Democrats have spent decades hammering home the idea that Minorities cannot (or should not have to) stand on their own, and MUST rely on Government Handouts to survive.
Man has been domesticating animals with that same paradigm, for eons. We supply all their needs: Food, shelter, healthcare... All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct, work as we demand, and we get to EAT THEM, if the mood strikes.
Man should not do that to his fellow man. Slavery, particularly this sly, insidious kind, is evil. Who would wish that on his worst enemy?
The new Plantation is the Democrat Party. The new Whip is fear of Republicans (who will take away all we have forced the Evil Rich to "share"). The new Crop is voter turnout.
Maybe it's cause Santorum calls then blaaaaahhhh people. And Mormons aren't exactly minority friendly..and well, you know Paul's troubles with his newsletter...and oh yah...a white nationalist spoke at CPAC!!!
ooooops, forgot this one by Newt: food stamp president.
Reagan was a sellout. Most of his policies were socialist in nature.
You forgot to add vote Ron Paul, but why would anyone want to waste their vote?
"Vote Ron Paul" should have been in quotation marks.
Semantics aside, enjoy your tyranny.
The republican party is the party building an elite class and a slave class. Eight years of Bush drove this country into a hole so deep that we can barely crawl out but of course let's keep letting the wealthy pay less taxes than the rest of us so they can keep creating those jobs? Where are those jobs by the way? Making the wealthy pay their fair share is not socialism. It will increase revenues, which we must have because of our decade of war debt! I am so sick of people blaming the poor and homeless for the crumbs they get for the government as if that's whats breaking our backs! Give me a break. Programs need better regulations to be sure, but corporate welfare is where the revenues lie. Being a socially responsible government is not being a socialist government!
History shows when taxes get raised, revenues go down. Obama came into office, he raised taxes, the revenues tanked. Bush 1 raised taxes, revenues tanked, Clinton raised taxes, revenues tanked. Bush 2 lowered taxes, and btw, take time to read the actual bush tax cuts and you will see that there are not many tax cuts for the wealthy in there it was mostly for the poor and middle class, and the revenues went up to levels that have not been seen since he left office. The problem is Congress went on a spending binge and out spent what was coming in.
http://thebushtaxcuts.blogspot.com/
Actually Clinton raised taxes to a fair level for the wealthy and we enjoyed the best economy of my lifetime and he left office with a surplus, Bush stole that money from everyone who paid in and gave huge tax breaks to the wealthy with the usual Republican trickle down crap and guess what it trickled into the billionaires pockets, go figure.
Actually Clinton raised taxes and the economy tanked, it did not flourish till he later cuts taxes, then the economy began to grow. With Congress he also reformed Welfare, something no one wants to do now.
Bush did not steal anything from anyone, the huge tax breaks for the wealthy simply is a Dem Talking point. I gave you the link to read, there are two other links in the article that takes you to the actual tax cuts bills. You can read them for yourself and see for yourself.
Take for example the Jet tax Obama blames on the Bush tax cuts. You will see they do not exist. But if you go read the Obama stimulus, WHALA, there it is. He is the one who gave the jet tax break. The best is it had a sunset clause for 2010. So not only does Obama mislead everyone about the origins of the tax credit, he wants to eliminate a credit that does not even exist anymore.
You really need to research the revenues by years and budget spending by years. Its an eye opener.
I am sure you did not go read the link I left you. There was a calculator link there where you could put in your information and see how much your taxes will increase just as soon as Obama eliminates them. I think that would interest you.
I forgot to mention, the calculator was a cool tool, the best for my family is the compromise, which I thought to be fitting since I believe compromise is the best way for us to achieve results:) thanks for the link
Tammy,
I agree that that compromise is a good way to go, unfortunately, Washington cannot compromise on anything. In fact they cannot agree if it was raining outside while they under an umbrella that was protecting them from the rain.
I may not agree with you but at least I respect your viewpoint and we civilly discuss the issue. It is long past time for Washington to do the same. There is plenty of blame to go around for what both sides have done that brought us to where we are now.
I am not against raising taxes on the top 1%, but, I am against raising anyones taxes until the waste and unauthorized spending is cut first. We also need to overhaul the tax codes. If after that has honestly been accomplished and we are still running deficits, then raise taxes on the top 1% and if that is not enough, then raise them on all of us.
Tammy,
I followed your link and I know the site fact check. I am not sure why you posted it, I guess there was something you wanted me to read on taxes but I did not see an article about taxes on the page.
American View, I used that sight to research Clinton's Presidency, it's been awhile so I'm not sure where I used for the search, I apologize, What I had found was about the 1993 Economic Plan, that Clinton had cut taxes on low income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, he raised taxes on the top 1%, 7.7 million new jobs were created in the first 2 and ahlf years of his presidency, unemployment fell from 7% to 5.6% and real GDP growth in 1994 as the highest in over a decade. I just think the man was a financial whiz kid. Now I know technologies were booming in the 90"s, but they still are today, we are just not funding and fostering education the way we did in the 90's. I agree with you about taxes, I actually the idea of a flat tax, maybe some breaks for small business, and I know what your saying about waste and corruption, without getting rid of the crooks no good measures will ever matter; crooks on both sides. We may disagree on how to get there to some degree but its obvious we both love our country and want to see things in Washington change. We have also proven that an intelligent conversation between a conservative and a liberal can happen,lol, good for us:)
Your interpretation of the damage that Bush has created is conveniently benign. Bush did not only ravage the sound economic conditions and more than a trillion dollar budgetary surplus that were handed to him by the outgoing democratic president, but he has shattered America's good standing in the eyes of the world and and became with killing people. when he left office, his legacy was the worst recession in 80 years, a financial and banking structure that were on the verge of collapse and an economy that was loosing 500,000 jobs, a month.
No enemy of America has done more harm to the American nation and the American brand than George Bush.
And in that situation, there is no glory for anyone, republicans or democrats. America and Americans have been the losers as a result of the Bush debacle.
JANZE,
First the obvious, even the CBO has admitted there was no surplus under Clinton. He "achieved it" with phony numbers. He counted the funds piad to SS trust fund and to the federal retirement system as income when they truly were not. He was the only President to ever do that.
Even if you still do not believe that, show me where the national debt either fell or did not go up one penny under Clinton. I will save you the trouble but you can still look it up, NEVER. The national debt rose every year under Clinton. So, if we had a surplus, which we all know means we had enough money to pay the bills with funds left over, then why did the national debt continue to rise? The national debt is the accumulation of the shortages the yearly budget yields and we had to borrow to pay all the bills. So again, why borrow money to pay the bills if you have a surplus of money? Answer, because we did not have a surplus.BTW, even the best spinning economists never even said there was a trillion dollar surplus.
You blame Bush for the Banking and Financial issue. Who was it that passed the regulations that allowed it to happen? A Democratic controlled congress under Clinton and he signed those laws and regulations. Who was it the kept testifying to Congress that Fannie and Freddie were financially sound and told everyone to "invest heavily in Fannie stock?" Barney Frank(D) And who repeatedly questioned and warned that Fannie, Freddie and the banks were on course to financial ruin? The Republicans.
You claim Bush ravaged the economy, then why was the revenues the highest in history after the Bush tax cuts and have not been there since? Look Bush's major failure was not hitting the Veto button or stopping the out of control spending of Congress. That has to fall on Bush's shoulders and no one elses.
AV and Janze, I found the link to this question, www.factcheck.org :the budget and deficit under Bill Clinton; there is a difference between the deficit and the debt and I think folks just mix up the terminology, yes their was a surplus and yes the deficit shrunk every year under Clinton, the national debt is another can of worms all together,lol, Even after taking into account social security it has since been proven we were still running a surplus. The government does nor use GAAP accounting principles however, never have, go figure, I think they should and would be held accountable in the same way corporations are suppose to be.
You are right, there is a difference between budget deficit and national debt, but, a budget deficit adds to the total national debt. When the budget comes up short, we borrow the money to pay the bills, therefore adding to the national debt. So as I said earlier, if there was a surplus, there was no reason to add to the national debt, yet it went up every year under Clinton.
Here is something I just found
Clinton ran deficits throught all 8 years of his term, and one can go to the US Treasury Department and looking through the history of the total outstanding debt through Clintons term.
Every year Clinton was in office, the total national debt continued to climb.
How Clinton managed to claim a surplus was that while the general operating budgets ran deficits but Clinton borrowed from numerous off budget funds to make the on budget fund a surplus.
For example, in 2000, Clinton claimed a $230B surplus, but Clinton borrowed
$152.3B from Social Security
$30.9B from Civil Service Retirement Fund
$18.5B from Federal Supplementary Medical insurance Trust Fund
$15.0B from Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund
$9.0B from the Federal Unemployment Trust Fund
$8.2B from Military Retirement Fund
$3.8B from Transportation Trust Funds
$1.8B from Employee Life Insurance & Retirement fund
$7.0B from others
Total borrowed from off budget funds $246.5B, meaning that his $230B surplus is actually a $16.5B deficit.
($246.5B borrowed - $230B claimed surplus = $16.5B actual deficit).
If there is ever a true surplus, then the national debt will go down.
the national debt did not go down one year during the Clinton administration.
National Debt Growth Under Clinton
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
09/30/1998 5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 4,692,749,910,013.32
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
09/30/1992 4,064,620,655,521.66
But... American View... The alphabet news media ALL told me that Clinton had a surplus!
They also told me two weeks into the second Iraqi War that American troops were bogged down in a quagmire, were sure to lose and would all die, to the last man; Eggs were bad for me, Freddy Mac was fiscally sound and Solyndra was a great investment of half a billion tax dollars. Do you mean to say they might sometimes be WRONG???
http://factcheck.org/2008/02/the-budget … Ekvc.email
here is a nice chart, it even shows the difference from HW Bush and W Bush, the answer is clear about the surplus so please see for yourself
Forgetting the Smoke and Mirrors trick of short-term loans on the debt (in stead of longer term, far more stable loans we normally employ) for lower interest rates, which were Clinton's first attempt at saying he had "lowered Government spending." Let us also remember that REPUBLICANS held the majorities in both Houses starting in 1992, and were responsible for writing the Budgets and Bills which Clinton signed into law, then claimed responsibility for.
It's also worth noting that Democrats won majorities in both houses in 2006, two years BEFORE Obama took office, and started spending like drunken sailors. THAT created the economy poor little Obama had to inherit (if by "inherit," we mean campaigned for, fought dirty for and spent untold millions to acquire).
Democrats destroy economies everywhere they're given the power to do it. they cannot help it. Social Slavery to the State by the incremental increase of the Dependent Class is their only selling point, but they never advertize it that way.
stripedcrunchy, you really need to do some research and gets your facts straight, enough said, have a good day:)
I'm sorry, Tammy. Is there some Alternate Universe you live in, where every American soldier died in Iraq, Saddam remained in power and women weren't given the right to vote in Iraq for the first time in almost 20 years?
Or where Freddy Mac and Fanny Mae didn't tank the American economy? Or where Solyndra remained solvent, and is still manufacturing & selling solar panels to the millions and millions of people all around the world who are clamoring for them?
Tell me Tammy, in your cool Alternate Universe, did the Democrats hold their 40 year majority in both Houses past the 1992 elections? And did they NOT win back those majorities in 2006?
I'm hoping in YOUR Universe, the Democrats have actually written a Federal Budget some time in the last 1000 plus days, too. Because here in the Reality Based Universe, where the rest of us live, they haven't.
And in your reality based universe it's OK for fewer and fewer people to own more and more of the money!
Get real Striped, why is it bad for governments to do something but good for corporations to do exactly the same thing?
Bravo!
"Lots of you seem hell bent on turning a blind eye to the suffering of their people!"
Due to the impossible cost of living....a result of un-ending supply of the profit for the top....whether it be gained by wages or gvt largess.
Socialism for the Rich is what we have in America.
"Almost every American over the age of 18 years is in debt to a school, a financial institution or some corporation. The reasoning for the republicans seems to be you be a slave to a corporation, but not the state."
Of course, republicans do not take government handouts.
It is always amazing to me that people who claim to be republicans continue to say that they believe in less taxes and smaller governments. And while the speak that kind nonsense, the American government has grown bigger under republicans than under democrats.
Ignorance is not always bliss.
On the issue of socialism making people the slaves to the government has to be a joke.
Almost every American over the age of 18 years is in debt to a school, a financial institution or some corporation. The reasoning for the republicans seems to be you be a slave to a corporation, but not the state.
I sorry, whether you are slave to corporation or any other institution, you are still a slave.
I am not socialistic in my outlook, but I do not know of any population in the world that is more beholden to corporations than Americans.
Capitalism is a system that places more value on profit than on the human beings who make the profit possible. Does that seem like a system that is worthy of the praise of any rational being?
"Man has been domesticating animals with that same paradigm, for eons. We supply all their needs: Food, shelter, healthcare... All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct, work as we demand, and we get to EAT THEM, if the mood strikes."
This sounds like capitalism, aside from the eating part. Give me your cheap labor, and I will feed you enough to survive. Though health care isn't guaranteed either...It actually sounds like we treat our animals better than our people.
There are a few interesting perspectives on this, two that come to mind are a section in "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" and an essay called "Envy the slave" the premise of both being that if you own a slave or an animal you will care for it because if it gets injured or sick or dies you lose property and money on the other hand if an employee dies he can be easily replaced, in the current economy usually at a lower price, furthermore remember that for most high powered positions companies take out life insurance on their employees and so actually benefit greatly from the death of their employees, so in a truly free capitalist system with no government intervention it would certainly be better to be a slave (or an animal as far as treatment) in our current somewhat restricted capitalist society it's debatable who is better off, after all most wages are not sufficient to completely provide for a family.
To give an example if I have a work horse and I work him too hard and he gets sick I have to pay for his treatment and suffer losses while he is unable to work, if an employee gets sick then he is just fired and replaced with someone else, there is a lot more incentive to take care of my horse than my employees.
There are a few interesting perspectives on this, two that come to mind are a section in "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" and an essay called "Envy the slave" the premise of both being that if you own a slave or an animal you will care for it because if it gets injured or sick or dies you lose property and money on the other hand if an employee dies he can be easily replaced, in the current economy usually at a lower price, furthermore remember that for most high powered positions companies take out life insurance on their employees and so actually benefit greatly from the death of their employees, so in a truly free capitalist system with no government intervention it would certainly be better to be a slave (or an animal as far as treatment) in our current somewhat restricted capitalist society it's debatable who is better off, after all most wages are not sufficient to completely provide for a family.
To give an example if I have a work horse and I work him too hard and he gets sick I have to pay for his treatment and suffer losses while he is unable to work, if an employee gets sick then he is just fired and replaced with someone else, there is a lot more incentive to take care of my horse than my employees.
That is really interesting. It sounds like something Marx would've said. Some early socialists thinkers also argued slavery was better than the wage system. Back in their day, there was no unemployment insurance or anything like that. Many people starved to death if they lost their job. With slavery, theoretically, you are guaranteed a house and a minimal amount of food. With wage labor, you aren't even guaranteed that.
I also didn't know the whole thing about life insurance. Why can't we just have cooperation instead of competition? Humankind can work together for the common good, rather than everyone working for their own private interest. Wouldn't it be incredible if everyone in the world decided to work together to provide for basic needs?
Yes it would, I truly hope we will see it as a reality some day, if you have an interest in these matters there are two books you must read. The a fore mentioned "The Ragged trousered Philanthropists" which can be read here since the copyright expired 70 years ago or so: http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/3608 its a critique f capitalism coming from someone who truly experienced it before government regulation as a worker in the industrial revolution, as well as being interesting it's a great story as it is written in a novel form.
The other is called Walden Two it is written by B F Skinner one of the leading behavioral psychologists of all time, he can speak with authority about what human nature truly is and what people will accept or not with this knowledge in mind he creates a Utopian society that he believes would conform to human nature (and he is pretty much THE expert on it.)
I think I should give you a follow, if you do ever get round to reading either of those (or if you already have) I would love to hear what you thought, good or bad.
Um...no. ACTUAL slavery and other events after that, you might've heard of'em: segregation, a denial or education, jobs, housing, dignity, rights, etc... etc... kinda led to minorities, blacks in particular, being in worse of a situation than they would have been in if they were just allowed to do for themselves in the first place. So wanting someone to stand on their own 2 is a great sentiment, but you don't get to say it AFTER YOU BREAK SOMEONE'S FUCKING LEGS. Under normal circumstances, of course everyone should do for themselves, but conservatives, as always, conveniently forget what led to people needing the help in the first place. It's not a handout or socialism to repair damage that YOU caused. That's called personal responsibility. Ironic isn't it? Calling on others to shoulder a burden that, a good portion, was handed to them by you?
You don't get to first chain someone to the starting line, then let them run on a track when you've thrown obstacles in their way, then say they shouldn't complain or that you have no further responsibility because you're currently not throwing anymore obstacles on the track. The old ones are still there. Their responsibility is to keep running forward, yours is to clear out the obstacles that you put down in the first place. Of course that's too much to ask though.
Thinking Allowed, but damned little research, evidently.
Prior to the Great Society, the New Deal, and the creation of the Welfare State, black families all across the Nation were moving steadily up through the Middle and Upper Classes. Margarete Sanger found that very concept despicable, and created a lasting institution bent on eliminating them from the gene pool.
The first Black congressmen were all Republican, whereas the segregationist knuckle-dragging Jim Crow Laws advocates were all Democrats.
One of the best, and least known points to recommend the Constitution, is that when slavery was abolished, not one word of it had to be changed.
Here's a little test for ya, Thinking (or anyone else who cares to answer): What was the point behind the "Three Fifths of a Person" language?
Given that I am a black person growing up in these communities seeing the economic, social, and, most importantly, psychological damage up close, inside and out, I think I've done more than enough research. The damage done in these communities is real. The cycles created in these communities are still going. The problem is not even how these problems are addressed, the problem, from your side, is a refusal to acknowledge where these problems even stem from or that they even exist. You don't get it and you don't attempt to. You sit around wondering why we wont vote for your nutjob candidates, making excuses as to what our reasons are (this forum being an example), instead of listening to what the people you're talking ABOUT are telling you when they're talking TO you.
Please don't try to pass off dems and repubs of today as being the same as those of the past. They may have the same label but they are not the same people. Damned little research or just damned dishonest? Those dixiecrats are your republicans today.
What's the point of bringing up 3/5's? People who couldn't vote and couldn't control their own destiny where used as pawns to beef up numbers to give sway to slave-holding states. Regardless of what amazing enlightening tid-bit you'll respond with about it, these people were not treated as people. That's really all I need to know.
For all those Lock-Step Liberal Lemmings who just KNOW Socialism is the Best Thing Ever...
And I thought it was capitalist America that destroyed Cuba!
Or don't embargoes count?
The Cuba with a longer life expectancy than the US? the Cuba with total free healthcare? The Cuba that provides heating for hundreds of thousands of families in the US? The Cuba with a lower infant mortality rate than the US? The Cuba with free higher education? The Cuba with a literacy rate three times what it was before the revolution? The Cuba with three times the average GDP per person than before the revolution? Cuba is a million times better off now than it was under capitalist patronage, go read some statistics. Those casinos were built by Mafia money shipped in and the island was under the control of of a dictator who the year before the revolution killed 30 000 of his own citizens and strung their limbs up from light posts and trees to discourage people questioning his government, oh yeah Cuba was much better off before socialism...
It's OK, I was just having a dig at Striped.
No one has claimed or is claiming that Socialism is the best system. the issue is that that worshipful adoration of capitalism that Americans seem to have for capitalism belies the shattering reality of it.
Exactly! Conservatives most of all seem enamored with this idea of capitalism that exists on paper and only works there as well. This idea works great when no people are living under it.
The best system is the one that works. I couldn't care less what you call it. Ralph Deeds below put it like this and I agree:
"Fair taxation and sufficient government revenues to support good public schools, public libraries, public transportation, repair roads and bridges, and sufficient regulation to provide a reasonable assurance that banks and businesses deliver fairly on their promise of prosperity in a market economy. This is not socialism. It's merely common sense."
Common sense is severely lacking today. Suddenly, the EPA has turned into some kind of mythological evil monster that is out to destroy the economy, and any government spending is seen as wasteful, even if it's on something like roads, bridges, or teachers.
State controlled socialism has not yet been acheived. The Soviet Union wasn't a true socialist state, socialism is a bottom up thing, not a top down thing. It starts with two people being socialble to each other in every way, and then, random acts of kindness can take over, and through 6 degrees of separation, it can spread...until everyone is being sociable. Socialism is better than Anti-socialism.
Thanks Dude. You at least attempted to address the issue I posted. I wish fervently that what you described was what socialism is, but that's just not the case.
These other glittering jewels of colossal ignorance simply bleated "Two legs bad, four legs good!!" Never speaking to the larger issues I brought to the table.
I adhere to the definition of the root word, Social. Social programs are those labeled socialist, therefore, the finished product of a socialist state has to begin with the weakest of us. Linking the ability to have a meal to eat should not be determined by how much one can pay. Nor should the ability to get medical help. Or a roof over your head.
How evil, putting food into a hungry man's belly and putting a roof over a tired man's head!
Means , dare I say it? SHARING THE WEALTH EQUALLY.
No, no, how would I afford to fly my Lear Jet!
You might ask Queen Michelle that very question. 22 assistants (20 more than any previous first lady), full security compliment, friends and attendants, ALL get to fly with her on her various, exorbitant vacations. ALL on the American Taxpayer's dime. And a puny little Lear Jet? Heaven forbid!
Elite Socialist Propagandists are only about spending OTHER people's money.
Ron Paul on the other hand refuses Secret Security protection, and will voluntarily take a 90% pay cut if elected President.
With whom do you share your wealth, and do you share it equally? You all miss the point of what StripedCrunchy is trying to say. When you take away a person's incentive to make their own living, you turn them into nothing more than a house pet... it's the old give a man a fish vs. teach him how to fish deal. I don't mind sharing with those who HAVE not, but I'm not so thrilled about sharing with those who WILL not.
Of course there is nothing in socialism that says "equally".
To each according to need, from each according to ability.
I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I traveled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.
~Benjamin Franklin, On the Price of Corn and Management of the Poor, November 1766~
Repeal that [welfare] law, and you will soon see a change in their manners. St. Monday and St. Tuesday, will soon cease to be holidays. Six days shalt thou labor, though one of the old commandments long treated as out of date, will again be looked upon as a respectable precept; industry will increase, and with it plenty among the lower people; their circumstances will mend, and more will be done for their happiness by inuring them to provide for themselves, than could be done by dividing all your estates among them.
~Benjamin Franklin, letter to Collinson, May 9, 1753~
Ben Franklin is so right. It's really hard to find that balance though. I think a lot of social services to help the poor have just enabled some of them to stay on benefits for generations. It might be too late for the black lower class and unfortunately, the Mexican lower class seem to be following in their wake.
Being Sociable is a far cry from being a Socialist. To quote George Carlin, "By and large, language is a tool for concealing the truth."
The Left has a long and checkered past, where using dumbed-down weasel words to fool the incurious, are concerned. "Murdering the Unborn" became Abortion became Choice.
I am all for human kindness, socializing, society, Charity (a word derived from Christian Giving, BTW) and the constant improvement of the Human condition. When people are allowed to enjoy the fruits of their OWN labors, Creativity and Wealth pour forth like water from a geyser.
When you hold a gun to them, and FORCE them to give more and more of the product of their own labors to an ever growing "dependent" class (while taking a healthy cut off the top for Administrative Purposes, don't ya know), you effectively cap the well. Choking off all incentive to innovate and produce.
I don't care what nice words you come up with to title it; a dung-heap, by any other name, would smell as foul.
Good point...maybe that is how socialist became one of George's dirty words. Socialism still trumps anti-socialism. Don't try to re-define the word simply to foster misconception.
But you are describing capitalism where people are definitely not allowed to enjoy the fruits of their own labours, there are too many sponging off them to have enough left to enjoy!
"Sponging" like the dependent class our Democrat SlaveMasters encourage, John? So they can garner votes from the plantation? By telling them the Evil Rich aren't paying their Fair Share, and so must be sponged off more, at the point of the government's guns?
Again you're using conservative arguments to make a liberal case, John. You ARE a mole, aren't you.
I don't know about that, all I know is that if you work for a capitalist you can expect to be paid anything from one sixth to one quarter of what you earn. Unless of course you live in the third world where they are nothing like as generous.
Would you really like a debate about slavery?
OK, let's get it on!
What do you think about your capitalist buddies employing children in Asian countries for pennies?
The same way I feel about illegal aliens sneaking teenaged girls into America to work as prostitutes in mobile sex-slave rings. They need to die horrible deaths.
Except, the people you're describing are NOT Conservatives, and the capitalism you're describing is once again, of the Crony Kind. Free Market Capitalism crushes that kind of business as soon as the facts come out. Greed is NOT the hallmark of Capitalism, despite everything you've been taught.
They can ONLY stay in business with Big Government assistance. Patronage and bribes.
Like me, you want to END that particularly vile practice, which only seems to happen in Socialist/Communist dictatorships, which turn a blind eye to the suffering of their populace. The best way to effect the death of that, is to import Free Market Capitalism into those hell holes.
How does free market capitalism crush free market capitalism? And if greed isn't the hallmark of capitalism, what is? You reckon paying a man only 25% of what he earns isn't greedy!
Are you telling me that the US is a socialist/communist dictatorship? Lots of you seem hell bent on turning a blind eye to the suffering of their people!
How do you figure a (boss, company, whatever) only pays 1/4 of what a man earns? Are you conveniently forgetting risk, capital investment, work of the boss himself, etc.? Are you leaving out what the company pays for unemployment insurance, FICA taxes for the employee and any bennies?
I don't think I know anyone that is working for 1/4 of what they could earn doing the same work on their own. On the contrary, those I know personally that have gone into business for themselves are earning only a little more than when working for the company where they got the experience and knowledge to start their own company. They also typically put in 1/2 again as many hours.
The man working on his own loses the economy of scale that benefits the larger company.
If you have difficulty believing me, next time you take your car in for service find out what they charge for an hours labour and what they pay for an hours labour. You'll find that it isn't the boss paying all those deductions you list, it's the customer and the man doing the work,the boss is just profiteering.
Of course the customer pays all the costs of a business. If they didn't the business would go bankrupt.
The customer wanting a car serviced must pay for the building, real taxes, the lifts to raise the car, the bookkeepers, the tools used to work. He must pay for the utilities (electricity, gas, water, etc.) and the TV in the waiting room. He pays for 1/2 the FICA taxes of the man doing the work, his unemployment uninsurance, his workman's comp costs and probably the uniform the worker wears. He even pays the taxes the business submits to the govt. He pays for maintenance and upkeep on the building and everything in it.
While labor is generally a large percentage of business costs, it is seldom over half. The rest goes to a very wide variety of items. If this is how you come up with employees earning 1/4 of what they earn for the business (by ignoring all business costs) you might want to re-think that stand.
I'm just curious though...how come they always say
"we must raise the price on customers to cover rising costs of doing business"....meanwhile, the ceo makes 24 mil a year...Really? He couldn't make say....20 mil instead? They HAVE to throw it on the customers?
Why? (greed)
While I might agree with you that greed is a primary cause, I doubt the CEO does. I know that I have never asked my boss for a pay cut, to be passed on in pennies to the customer in even those rare times when my wife and I were doing well.
Keep in mind that any CEO making that kind of money has a very large customer base. Unless his primary product sold is very expensive (cars, maybe) he could give up his entire salary in rebates to the customers and they won't see anything but a penny per sale (or less).
Even if it was GM selling cars - well, they sold over 4 million cars last year. Distributing 24 million over those sales is $6 per car sold. Would it make you feel great to get a $6 rebate on your new $30,000 car? Would you thank the CEO for that princely sum or just go after the next one in line?
No, but his workers might thank him for a pay rise.
Or, they might thank him for their JOBS, because if the CEO hadn't positioned the company to grow, they would not have been hired. Had the CEO not negotiated sustainable contracts with venders and distributors, the products those employees put together would not have been sold, and the whole company would have gone under.
Then there is the MANDATORY charitable donating companies and corporations of a size must engage in. The personal charitable donations those Evil CEO's engage in (how many billions have Bill and Melinda Gates given away through their Foundation?).
The very definition of a BIG Company, is one which employs a whole lot of people.
If you think helming an organization of 150,000 people, with branches all over the world and a workforce which looks to YOU to make decisions which will ensure they can feed their families, every day, and all that stress & investment isn't worth whatever amount you earn, you haven't the experience or wisdom necessary to pass judgement on those who do.
So the Gates family give away billions of whose money?
Do you think if Bill dropped dead tomorrow that would be the end of Microsoft, or do you think that they would just carry on as before?
Today, Microsoft will carry on. Had Bill not started it, brainstormed it, staffed it and built it literally from the ground up, it would not be. How many people in the world have jobs because of Bill Gates? For all the Billions that he has EARNED, how many Trillions has he generated?
Without we greedy, selfish Capitalists generating all that private sector wealth, you poor, hapless little sponge-fed Liberal Socialists wouldn't have anyone to siphon wealth FROM.
From Wiki:
The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF or the Gates Foundation) is the largest transparently operated[4] private foundation in the world, founded by Bill and Melinda Gates. It is "driven by the interests and passions of the Gates family".[5] The primary aims of the foundation are, globally, to enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty, and in America, to expand educational opportunities and access to information technology. The foundation, based in Seattle, Washington, is controlled by its three trustees: Bill Gates, Melinda Gates and Warren Buffett. Other principal officers include Co-Chair William H. Gates, Sr. and Chief Executive Officer Jeff Raikes. It had an endowment of US$33.5 billion as of December 31, 2009.[3] The scale of the foundation and the way it seeks to apply business techniques to giving makes it one of the leaders in the philanthrocapitalism revolution in global philanthropy,[6] though the foundation itself notes that the philanthropic role has limitations.[5] In 2007, its founders were ranked as the second most generous philanthropists in America.[7] In 2010, its founders had started The Commission on Education of Health Professionals for the 21st Century titled as "Transforming education to strengthen health systems in an interdependent world".[8]
Bill Gates took an idea (somebody else's) and ran with it, trampling any real opposition underfoot as he did so. How many anti competitive court cases has he seen now?
Funny how you get bent all out of shape by us poor hapless little sponge fed Liberal Socialists siphoning wealth, how come you don't get all bent out of shape by the filthy rich siphoning off wealth from you and I?
Success breeds jealousy, John. The higher you make it in life, the easier a target you become, so expect occasional pot-shots. And Bill Gates did not (could not) FORCE me, or anyone else for that matter, to buy and use his company's products.
How does Microsoft do anything but make MY life better? My windows operating system allows me to fight ignorance all over the web, advertize my services to the globe, and keep in contact with friends and loved ones, 24/7. All for a reasonable price, which I have deemed fair for the value I receive.
The Government is not nearly so cordial about the money they take from me, nor the things they spend it on.
I'm not jealous but neither am I blind.
And if you really believe you have an option not to subscribe to Bill Gates pension fund then you are misguided as well.
It isn't about whether MS makes your life better anyway, it's more about how much money one person can have without upsetting the whole balance and plunging many into poverty.
"...it's more about how much money one person can have without upsetting the whole balance and plunging many into poverty."
I am DYING to know; What mechanism, chain of events or magical hopenchange formula makes that happen, John. Please, in some detail, if you would, explain to me in real terms how one man's fortune can become SO large other people start to lose money. In a world where wealth and GDPs are growing every second, like here on Earth, that is.
For instance, what is this "balance" you speak of, what is it created by and why is it necessary? And you cannot use "balance" in the answer describing balance.
I ask because you're speaking in sound-bite platitudes which seem based wholly on uninformed class-warfare agitprop, and I honestly feel you're better than that.
You're joking aren't you? If the top 20% own over 50% of the wealth, they own over 50% of the wealth (not income) whatever the size of the pot, it doesn't matter how fast wealth and GDP grows, over 50% is always over 50%.
What happens when that 50% becomes 60%-70%-80%?
Yes.
What's the matter, didn't fit your prejudices?
How do you murder something that's unborn?
sheeeesh, that's about as silly as saying forcing women to give birth is less gvt intrusion!
"When you hold a gun to them, and FORCE them"....eggs-actly.
and yup..it does smell.
How can you murder something that is inherently alive? Abortion: a good excuse for promiscuity and unreserved sexual abandon.
Perfect solution: Home Abortion Kits "No one need ever know!"
"All we require in return is that they only behave as we direct"
Yes, we know...you've been trying to do it forever, under the guise of "freedom"
Forcing ME to pay for your sex, particularly if you're not giving any to me... Is that fair?
Two legs bad, you say?? Four legs good, is it?
No--I'm asking you to let ME pay for it.You won't even do that. Churches run this gvt!--And they get a free ride!!!
Socialism for Religion is what we have in America.
Churches run this Government??
Lovemychris? I tried very hard to believe that your insistence that "up is down, sweet is sour, rough is soft and fish have fur" was somehow an attempt on your part at seeming provocative.
Sadly, I'm now beginning to believe you're committed to spouting whatever nonsense you feel might add credence to your cause. Statements like "A baby isn't alive before it's born" also make you out to be callous and without feeling.
Therefor, I'm afraid I can no longer read another word you write without picturing you as Shalob, and giving your words little weight and less thought.
By all means, feel free to ignore me right back.
Sounds more capitalist than socialist to me, kind of like the lifestyles of the capitalist elites.
Amen, Dude.
The people who argue FOR abortion, as it stands, come off as Poster Children for the Retroactive Abortion movement.
None of them having been aborted themselves, it only seems fair.
We KNOW how important fairness is, and that people who are not a minority or protected social class cannot possibly speak on a subject, having never been through it.
Not getting uncomfortable and trying to change the subject are we?
Free Market Capitalism, as discussed by Benjamin Franklin in the two quotes I posted, has a long history of creating jobs, wealth and unalloyed prosperity.
I'm not sure I see your point, Knol. Unless you have an argument that refutes Benjamin Franklin's?
It creates inequality, and bubbles in the ecomomies which burst with catastrophic effects. Capitalism leaves the least capable among us from reaping the benefits which should be shared by all.
Crony Capitalism, where the Government gets to choose the winners and losers by virtue of Patronage, is what you're describing. Fanny Mae. Freddy Mac, Solyndra, the friggen Volt. The list of Government failures, just this decade, is staggering.
The Buggy Whip industry tanked, because Free Market Capitalism allowed Henry Ford to produce affordable cars for the masses, which changed the face of our entire planet for the betterment of all mankind. Ambulances and Firetrucks can reach their destinations in minutes, not hours.
Or do you believe the State could have come up with something better and cheaper, without the Private Sector and Capitalism?
Did you not read, or simply not believe, the Benjamin Franklin quotes about the consequences of "giving" to the poor?
Benjamin Franklin was living in cloud cuckoo land, or at least at a time when capitalists didn't demand unemployment to keep wages down.
"...a time when capitalists didn't demand unemployment to keep wages down."?
WHAT??
You've just fallen out of the Realm of Reality, John. NO idea what that sentence was supposed to communicate.
It's quite simple really, unemployment is a great depressant of wages,those bosses who scream against the minimum wage like unemployment because it keeps man prepared to work for any wage.
I know in your warped world view you will claim that only socialists like unemployment but you'd be wrong.
I have to remind myself you live in Europe, which has been stagnating under the auspices of Socialism for the better part of a century, and forgive your less than firm grasp of Economics and History, John. Educators cannot teach what they do not know.
I own a business. I have a service to sell. I CANNOT sell my service to the Unemployed or the Poor. Free Market Capitalism recognizes that every business is in the Sales business, and the better off your client base, target market, customer pool or demographic, the better off your Business will be. I cannot get rich, if everyone is too poor to buy from me. *I* know that. Rich people know that. EVERYONE seems to know that, except you.
I've read where you wrote greed defines Capitalism, and Capitalists rob from the poor and their employees. I would assume you also feel guns cause violence, poverty causes crime, buying oil causes terrorism, man causes the Globe to Warm (or the Climate to Change), keyboards cause misspelled words and forks cause fatness. Because none of those things are true, either.
Sorry it's really your frankly atrocious understanding of political systems that needs to be forgiven/corrected. You see Socialism is where the state owns most of them means of production at the current time that is not the case in any European country. Capitalism is when most of the means of production are privately owned, that is how all of the Major European countries function (actually I believe it is all full stop but there are some very small ones I am unsure about)
Socialism:
A political and economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.
cap·i·tal·ism/ˈkapətlˌizəm/
Noun:
An economic and political system in which a country's trade and industry are controlled by private owners for profit.
Definitions learn them and love them.
#2 I would remind you that with the exception of Greece and possibly Ireland every major European economy is in a better state than the American one and that the collapse of the American economy occurred under the very capitalist conservative George Bush after he received it in good condition from the previous Democrat and progressive president.
Facts are facts.
Ah. I get it now. You're a died-in-the-wool Communist, Josak. Aren't ya. Silly independent thinkers like ol' Crunchy need to be "re-educated" or just plain shot, right? Lies and violence and spread the misery equally, if History is any indicator. “All within the State, nothing outside the State, nothing against the State."
I'll repeat myself, if only because the lesson is worth learning. People don't pee in the their own doorway. If "everybody" owns it, then "nobody" is singularly responsible for it. That alone goes a long way explaining why Communist/Socialist Countries invariably wind up starving. Excepting their Ruling Class Elites, of course.
Unless you want to show us the Prosperous Thriving Communist Country. whose people are NOT under the iron heal of the State's jackbooted thugs, living in abject fear and destitute poverty?
People don't pee in their own door way but the rich have plenty of poor peoples doorways to pee in.
Show me any true Communist country at all, you'll struggle.
Right so you never replied to any of my points and just went on a rant about me being a communist... Which I am not. No Comment on the definitions that you didn't know? How surprising.
Josak. You can quote all the Dictatorial socialist propaganda you like, that still doesn't change them into truths. Nor does your claim you're not a communist. Karl Marx himself said Unionization was the first and most necessary step towards Communism. Sorry man. You wave more red flags than the Chinese Embassy.
John, the reason you don't find pure Communist countries is because THEY FAIL. Communism may look cool on paper, but in practice, just like Socialism, it fails miserably every time.
Rich people do not NEED to pee in doorways, so they don't.
Case in point: The public restrooms in Yosemite National Park needed to be refurbished. NEEDED. However, the political appointee in charge of making financial decisions for the park was convinced a shiny new Hotel would cost more, look better, and buy his patron far more votes. The restrooms were left to smell, and the hotel boondoggle was built. If everybody owns it, then nobody is ultimately responsible for it.
The hotel sucks, amenities are limited and the Privately held hotels consistently get better reviews. Did I mention the restrooms still smell, and leak unprocessed sewage into the environment?
Or I might also mention the Public Union employees of the Securities and Exchange Commission, who were spending up to 8 hours a day, at work, downloading porn to their Government paid for computers. One guy confesses he'd had to buy external storage, because his computer was full. NONE of their names were released to the public. None of them were fired. None of them had their wages garnished to pay us back for all the time they'd wasted. It's worth mentioning the average income for these perverts was in the $80K range.
And YOU guys want MORE Government??
Couldn't be the dread hand of capitalism getting involved could it?
Even Cuba, who Knol claims as a successful communist country has for it's whole life had the mighty hand of capitalist America bearing down on it, willing it not to succeed.
If you truly own a business and not some one man enterprise you will know that when you want to employ somebody new, you would rather have a choice of applicants who were more concerned with getting work than with money than one applicant (if you are lucky) with ten options for work and the only chance of getting him to come and work for you is to offer him more money than any of the others can.
Rich people understand better than you do that there is a balance between those that can afford their product and those who can't.
Look at, say, Rolls Royce cars, there are millions who can't afford one. Do the bosses at RR have sleepless nights worrying about this? I very much doubt it. Do they care that none of their workers can afford one? Nope.
Poor argument, there are many companies that go after a particular demographic
My point exactly against striped crunchies argument that every employer wanted full employment to provide the maximum number of customers.
The point is that they don't, not even the people providing the most basic of wants.
If we're going to continue with the Socialist Propaganda John, we can also say Republicans want dirty air, poisonous water, grandma to starve and children to have low self esteem. As if we don't breathe the air or drink the water or have grandmothers or children, ourselves.
Put down the kooklaid, man.
Oh come on, don't get silly, you can admit that you were wrong and that everybody does not strive for full employment.
How does a business benefit from broke customers? It's not just the available employee pool they have to contend with, they have to have people who can afford their stuff.
In a Free Market (not one burdened with Cronyism), if I am a cheap bastard who pays the very very least I can to my workers, a number of things are bound to happen.
One: The quality of my product and productivity will sharply decrease, because you only get what you pay for. That law is true of employees as well as anything else.
Two: My customer base will dwindle, because competitors will make better products utilizing a better paid, better incentivized workforce.
Three: I will be forced to either pay my people better, or smarter leaner companies will hire them away.
Your argument that unemployment keeps labor rates down is based on the assumption that only the employees see the equation. You're forgetting customer base, investment capital, potential partners, venders and distributors.
Everybody wants everybody working, in a Free Market Capitalist society.
Tell that to your mates who complain about a minimum wage. Tell that to the employer who wants to hire cheap labour.
Do a bit of research, this isn't my fancy but a well known (well to some of us) fact of life. Full employment leads to wage increases and inflation,they tell me.
I kind of feel like socialism abdicates social responsibility rather than enforces it. You don't need to be kind to your neighbor anymore; the government takes any excess you might produce and is kind to your neighbor for you. You see someone in need? Meh, the government will get around to it eventually. That's their job, not mine.
Conservatives give 30% more to charity than liberals. They also volunteer more time and give more blood (incidentally, conservatives also earn less on average than liberals; surprised?). And I might as well quote this directly: "People who reject the idea that 'government has a responsibility to reduce income inequality' give an average of four times more than people who accept that proposition." To me that's the difference between talking about helping the poor and actually helping them.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articl … l_giv.html
I do believe that is a conservative site so it's probably not immune to bias. But an understandably dismayed liberal columnist also confirmed the facts:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opini … istof.html
I kind of agree with Druid Dude's definition of "socialism." It needs to come from the bottom up. That means the top needs to get out of the way.
But as I've said in other threads, I'm all for government programs that "equip" rather than "enable." I'll vote for a school or mental health levy practically sight unseen. Welfare needs to be replaced with a comprehensive job training and placement program, with just enough cash to get people by until they can stand on their own feet. Disability still needs to exist, of course; there will always be people who will abuse it, but there does need to be a provision who simply can't provide for themselves.
Capitalism can't do social well. Those at the top of the ladder are too busy trying to stay there, and there isn't much room at the top 'o the ladder. It's to elevated a pedestal to look down from. The heights make you dizzy....and besides, the only thing beneath you is all the ones who helped elevate you to that lofty place....those same ones you had to exploit (USE) and wlk over to get to where you are. The biggest hog with the most slop.
But it can do a very good job of pulling the wool over peoples eyes!
As William Blake said -
What is the price of experience? do men buy it for a song?
Or wisdom for a dance in the street? no, it is bought with the price
Of all that a man hath, his house, his wife, his children
Wisdom is sold in the desolate market where none come to buy
And in the wither’d field where the farmer plows for bread in vain
It is an easy thing to triumph in the summer’s sun
And in the vintage and to sing on the waggon loaded with corn
It is an easy thing to talk of patience to the afflicted
To speak the laws of prudence to the houseless wanderer
To listen to the hungry raven’s cry in wintry season
When the red blood is fill’d with wine and with the marrow of lambs
It is an easy thing to laugh at wrathful elements
To hear the dog howl at the wintry door, the ox in the slaughter house moan;
To see a God on every wind and a blessing on every blast
To hear sounds of love in the thunder storm that destroys our enemies’ house;
To rejoice in the blight that covers his field
And the sickness that cuts off his children
While our olive and vine sing and laugh round our door
And our children bring fruits and flowers
Then the groan and the dolor are quite forgotten
And the slave grinding at the mill
And the captive in chains and the poor in the prison
And the soldier in the field
When the shatter’d bone hath laid him groaning among the happier dead
It is an easy thing to rejoice in the tents of prosperity:
Thus could I sing and thus rejoice: but it is not so with me
Dude. You're assumptions about Capitalism make your premises wrong. Hogs do not feed themselves, nor do they produce what they eat.
Hogs (domesticated, that is) await the farmer to come and fill the trough. The hogs in your analogy would be the dependent class I speak of. The Capitalist Producers would be the Farmers, making the food for the hogs to eat. Nor are they very likely to leave a trough that is constantly being filled. Hogs Are DEPENDENT AND DOMESTICATED.
Why on earth do you want to make Hogs of Men?
Capitalism creates Opportunity, which Socialism stifles at every turn. Yes, sadly, there will be winners and losers. You learn far more from your failures than you ever do from your successes. Socialism holds you down and keeps you down, telling you that you cannot succeed, so why even try? Just sponge off the State!
Men make hogs of themselves. Greed. Everything belongs to everyone. One gets too much, some go without. The more the few take, the less that is left for anyone else. Should everything be first come, first served. I think it should be share and share alike, according to need....like we're rationing, because we are rationing....except for the hoarders. Haven't you heard? Hoarding is an illness.
Druid, this answer is easily the least informed synopsis on the creation of wealth I have ever read. It completely ignores and disregards 1000s of years of trial and error on man's part. That particular train of thought almost destroyed the first settlers to land here in the new world. Everything does so very NOT belong to everyone. If it did, very little would actually BE.
I'll put it to your this way: Nobody pees in their own doorway. It is only when an individual OWNS a thing, that he truly values and respects it.
The motive for profit gave us such silly things as the Cotton Gin. Eli Whitney didn't invent it so we could all wear comfortable T-shirts. He made it so Eli Whitney could amass a tidy sum. Yet, "greedy" ol' Eli revolutionized the fabric industry, clothing millions of millions for less money than they had ever needed to spend, and generating great paying jobs all along the way.
Bill Gates didn't make Windows happen because he wanted Striped Crunchy to preach conservatism to a wider audience. He did it to enrich Bill Gates. And look how many lives have been enriched because of it. How many fortunes have been created. How much larger the Global Pie has become.
When one man wins, it doesn't mean another man has to lose. The economy is NOT a Zero Sum Game. Growth happens, wealth increases, the mind of Man invents better ways of building and growing and doing, and everyone benefits, because a single human has an idea to make himself rich.
You cannot share wealth that has not been created. You cannot force a man to give up that which he owns, most notably the products of his labors and his mind, so that you might "spread it around" without his permission or approval, without it being a robbery. no matter what name you put on it, stealing is stealing.
I mourn for the unicorn your ride in your dreams, Dude.
But can't you see, capitalism does everything that you list there. The working man creates the wealth and is forced to give it up where it is spread around without his permission or approval.
Yes indeed, stealing is stealing, even when your precious capitalists do it.
Striped:
From what you said, I take it that you have lived under socialism for many years and have experienced the stultifying nature of the system. And while you are so certain about the negations of socialism, perhaps, you would be kind enough to explain what system the Chinese used to bring more than 500,000,000 people out of poverty, about the populations of the US and western europe. And while you are doing that, perhaps, you would tell me which country owns the highest proportion of America's debt. I would appreciate your response.
China - the country that has become more and more capitalist since Mao.
Now, I have noticed that those who believe in the capitalistic religion, would go to extra-ordinary lengths to show that even in a socialist economy, capitalism is the prime reason for any success. The reverse argument is never made. How convenient!
I think that it is reasonable to note that there has never been a pure system of any kind, be it economics or religion or politics, in operation at any time, in any country. The deceitful pomposity of western propagandists is that whatever is western is necessarily superior to anything else that comes from any other parts of the world. Of course, that idea is nonsensical and it has been the stated motivation for some western governments to inflict extreme hardships and death on millions of people across the globe.
I suppose capitalism has its merits and I suppose that socialism has its merits. Yet, any system devised by man is inevitably flawed and does not deserve the kind of worshipful adoration that capitalism has continued to receive.
Strictly speaking, capitalism has caused some outrageous hurt for many, many people because it was never designed to regard the unique value of human beings. Capitalism was designed to use human beings as consumables to be discarded when their functionality declines. I maintain that any system that considers human beings as only a means to an end, has little merit in my estimation.
"capitalism has caused some outrageous hurt for many, many people"
Tell me that the next time you use your cell phone, your microwave, pull up to a drive through at a fast food joint.
All of those, not because of capitalism but despite it.
If you want to think about the suffering caused by capitalism,I could bring up slavery, but I won't this time, just look around you at every down and out.
First, I do not accept the implied notion that capitalism is the initiator of innovation. The history of the world has not shown that theory to be is factual. However, I suppose that earthquakes and volcanic eruptions may produce some benefits, but nobody, in his right mind, would choose to experience those events with regular frequency.
DOWN with Corporations, too!
I encourage all my delightfully Lefty friends to divest themselves of everything in their possession (forgetting that everyone owns everything, for a moment) which has a Corporate Logo on it. Starting, by all means, with the computers they're spouting their opinions from.
Evil ol' Corporations, acting all Corporationee; creating jobs, careers, products and services we can all voluntarily buy or not, depending completely on our own whims. It's an OUTRAGE, I tell ya!
Janze, when you set out to make poor points, you really go whole hog.
First: China has by NO MEANS raised their populace out of poverty. Labor is so friggen cheap in China, they use manual labor to tear down buildings brink by brick, by hand, then knock off the mortar and use the bricks to build the new buildings. One of the major TV networks did a Hugh "Capitalist China" miniseries, discussing why international companies are looking at building factories in China, to take advantage of their dirt cheap labor.
A country "dug out of poverty" will NOT be one known for it's "dirt cheap" labor. They also looked at Chinese farming communities where the average yearly wage was under a hundred dollars, the great gaping gap between the Rich and the Poor, their reluctance to give up the Bribe system the Chinese Government has had in place since Mao, and a dozen other hallmarks of Socialist Distopia.
Second: Just exactly what Political/Economic system PUT those 500,000,000 Chinese INTO poverty, again? What was the "ism" which made Slaves of an entire population (excepting, of course, the Ruling Elite, that is), killed hundreds of thousands and brought the rest to the brink of nationwide starvation? Communism; The logical end result of Socialism.
China, by beginning to embrace Capitalism, is slowly digging it's way out. They drill for their own oil and buy more from whoever will sell it to them. One of the key reasons they're on the road to outgrow even America is because they aren't bogged down by insipid Environmentalist Whackjobs, telling them they cannot tap their own resources.
If it's any consolation to you, they ARE already the #1 Polluter on the planet. I know how much you wanted them to have a top slot Somewhere.
On the whole, and having to choose between two evils (which seems the only type of choice these days), I reckon I'd reather be a slave to the State than to the Corporations. Then again, it's becominig one and the same, so, meh.
THAT's the problem! Fascism, not socialism.
We can choose to use all of the isms to categorize this form or that. The end result is that human beings suffer and that is the issue for all people and leaders, particularly.
Striped and crunchy. Not talkin' bout the creation of wealth. Pride of ownership huh? Maybe that's why people don't respect and appreciate others....they can't own them. There is a lot which can't be owned...do we disrespect all ? When we waste and over-indulge while others are doing w/o, when we don't respect that which we don't own, that is exactly where the problems come in. There is no excuse for unbridled greed and ambition. It makes conquerors of some and oppression of others. Usually the majority. It suggests that might does make right.
Two books that are suggested for the anti-socialist:
The Road to Serfdom, by Hayek
http://mises.org/store/Road-to-Serfdom-The-P252.aspx
and
Socialism, by Mises.
http://mises.org/books/socialism/contents.aspx
Hayek shows how the state uses good-works projects to lead to fascism, and Mises shows how socialism is doomed to collapse.
Knol, you've just nailed the key difference between Private and Public sectors, and why our Founding Fathers were so adamant about keeping Government small.
No business out there can FORCE me to give it a friggen dime, if I do not want its products or services.
Whereas, the Government can tax, levy, lien, appropriate, confiscate or legislate away everything I have, including my freedom, without so much as a By Your Leave.
America became the Greatest Nation in the History of the World, precisely because we started with a small government and encouraged self reliance.
Socialism discourages anything of the kind, and requires an ever growing Government maw, greedily sucking down every productive individual it can find in order to feed its burgeoning dependent class.
Where shall I get my electricity and heat from then??
Want to bet?
I was reading recently that if you buy a computer (new) and specifically don't have windows or any other MS garbage on it, MS still get a slice of your money.
Or how about you want to boycott Shell gas so you buy only Texaco, but unbeknown to you, all the Texaco gas comes from Shell anyway.
I could go on for hours but really can't be bothered trying to teach the terminally deluded anything.
Socialism gave you your national government, your states, universal money, highways, police, fire and water, state universities, local government and on.
Bad government is when capitalist thieves take over the institution of all.
WHAT?? Socialism made America?
Seriously. Do you guys invent this crap as you go, or is there some Twisted History website you all access, to find such atrocious lies to post.
Media Matters, Hufpo, Keith Oblermann, Michael Moore, MoveOn dot org, the Southern Poverty Law Center...
Wait. I withdraw the question.
Lock-step Liberal Lemmings. Trapped into the soft slavery of believing anyone who has achieved more than you, must have stolen it from you, and only the benevolent Nanny State can make it right. But even then, just barely.
You're right: Never try, never think, never believe you're worth anything more than a common cockroach, never dream that you might innovate or matriculate. Rest somnambulently in the arms of mother government.
The State will take care of you all. The Evil Rich will be made to suffer for the audacity of getting rich, everyone will be equally miserable and the loudest whiner will get the biggest dole. The unborn shall be murdered, the serial killer shall be set free, green energy will replace the last few gallons of Hydrocarbon based fuel left on Earth, terrorists will lay down their arms and no one will ever be angry or hungry or churchy again. Best of luck with that.
In the meantime, me and those like me will be busy living in the Real world, too busy to pay your empty little heads any further attention.
Bu-bye.
In other words; My capitalist masters have taken me to task for spending too much time on myself and not enough making them money!
There are many other forms of socialism than state socialism, just as there are forms of capitalism other than state capitalism.
Every employer wants full employment to provide the maximum number of customers, has to certainly been proven untrue when they sent all the jobs overseas.
They replaced the lost jobs with cheap credit, and that has worked out nicely.
As an aside, I had a strong, rising surplus before I got married...
but not I have a huge flaccid deficit that is no use to anyone
Cuba is a quite successful socialist, communist, as you will, state.
Maybe you should stop this:
"Slavery, particularly this sly, insidious kind, is evil. Who would wish that on his worst enemy?
The new Plantation is the Democrat Party."
Cause we all have kids too.
John have an article you might be interested in:
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2 … -fall.html
A bit of an eye opener but with nothing surprising in it, there are others on this thread who should read it.
Thanks.
The only reason why people think that socialism doesn't work is because they are unable to conceive of anything which isn't based on money. Socialism is about goods and services and making sure everything is distributed evenly, and Cuba is a really good example. There is no room for exploitation, and that is what capitalisms furnaces are fired with..
Unfortunately, there is little room for improvement, either. Few people will put out the extra effort to do a better job or to raise their productivity if there is nothing in it for them.
You're right - there is no room for exploitation, even of yourself and your talents.
Some comments would seem to suggest that innovation is a function of the 236-year existence of the United States and its particular brand of capitalism. And by extension, advances in technology are reserved for the specific areas of the world where that particular style of commerce is deemed to exist.
Well, I am sorry, but the world, human civilization and innovation are a little older than the United States of America and whatever systems of exploitation that it has adopted. And being called the greatest nation on earth is a title that has passed from nation to nation and shockingly, some of those greatest nations can only be found in the rubble of archaeological digs.
"the United States and its particular brand of capitalism" is actually a form of fascism.
Isn't Hong Kong polluted to high heaven?
And doesn't Cuba have one of the best healthcare systems on the planet?
Didn't they provide doctors for free, when the US health industry wouldn't?
And doesn't Chavez provide oil for low-income families here in the US, because no American companies will?
Good and bad in everything.The way some people worship Capitalism, you would think it's God.
btw--do you think you could tone down your rhetoric a little?
Socialism, depending on you you define it, is a dead issue. Cuba, and perhaps one or two other countries, is the only example of socialism left. And even Cuba has been edging toward free enterprise lately as Fidel is fading away. Russia, China, Vietnam and all the former USSR countries have moved toward market economies. Fair taxation and sufficient government revenues to support good public schools, public libraries, public transportation, repair roads and bridges, and sufficient regulation to provide a reasonable assurance that banks and businesses deliver fairly on their promise of prosperity in a market economy. This is not socialism. It's merely common sense.
Most Americans and especially republican Americans seem to think that any socially beneficial consequence as a result of any commercial interaction is evidence of the goodness of capitalism. And that is the reason the
To apply the kind of rhetoric that republicans use as the attributes of capitalism is to imply that there were no commercial enterprise before the American version of capitalism existed.
And when some people talk about market forces and the notions of supply and demand as if those factors are actually capitalistic features, misunderstood the nature and the character of capitalism.
Long before America was a nation or even before anyone has presented the ideas of capitalism or socialism, certain ordinary factors influenced commercial exercises.
Capitalism is driven by the idea of consume anything or anyone in order to produce the largest profit, for the fewest people.
Capitalism is driven by
by J Conn 5 years ago
Recently, at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC), conservatives had a common theme of railing against Socialism due to some of the progressives that have announced their candidacy for the presidency.Some of the internet comments made when this fearmongering was discovered were just...
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
Really? Prove it! What do democrats NOT agree with as far as socialism? What principles DO the democrats stand with?Wondering!
by Credence2 18 months ago
Ok, conservatives don't try to tell me this is just another story concocted by the "liberal press" or the "Deep State". The story is everywhere with the exception of the bonafide rightwing rags.https://news.yahoo.com/trump-openly-emb … 12440.htmlGoing into the mind of...
by Jackie Lynnley 5 years ago
I read this was true and I just have to know if it is, please! Please provide links to prove what you say. Surely we are not going to be aborting babies ready to come into the world fully developed and healthy?
by lady_love158 13 years ago
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=12771This is really aggravating! Even Palin is disappointing me! At least Bachmann had a proposal to cut farm subsidies but republicans supporting ethanol just to get votes of Iowans is morally wrong and unacceptable! We need to cut the budget, and that...
by Peeples 10 years ago
What is the big deal about socialism?Can someone explain to me why Americans (USA) typically say "socialist" in a negative way. I've been doing some research and many of these "socialist" societies are quite happy AND well provided for. So what is the big deal? Why are so many...
Copyright © 2024 The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers on this website. HubPages® is a registered trademark of The Arena Platform, Inc. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. The Arena Media Brands, LLC and respective content providers to this website may receive compensation for some links to products and services on this website.
Copyright © 2024 Maven Media Brands, LLC and respective owners.
As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.
For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://corp.maven.io/privacy-policy
Show DetailsNecessary | |
---|---|
HubPages Device ID | This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons. |
Login | This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service. |
Google Recaptcha | This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy) |
Akismet | This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Google Analytics | This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy) |
HubPages Traffic Pixel | This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized. |
Amazon Web Services | This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy) |
Cloudflare | This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Hosted Libraries | Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy) |
Features | |
---|---|
Google Custom Search | This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Maps | Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Google Charts | This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy) |
Google AdSense Host API | This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Google YouTube | Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Vimeo | Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy) |
Paypal | This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Login | You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy) |
Maven | This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy) |
Marketing | |
---|---|
Google AdSense | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Google DoubleClick | Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Index Exchange | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Sovrn | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Facebook Ads | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
AppNexus | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Openx | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Rubicon Project | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
TripleLift | This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy) |
Say Media | We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy) |
Remarketing Pixels | We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites. |
Conversion Tracking Pixels | We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service. |
Statistics | |
---|---|
Author Google Analytics | This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy) |
Comscore | ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy) |
Amazon Tracking Pixel | Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy) |
Clicksco | This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy) |