This article tended to resonate with how the left and the right view the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/02/07/opin … union.html
There is no democratic socialism. It does not exist any where. Most people does not know the meaning of socialism. Just go look it up in a dictionary.
Some even think the public library is socialism in action. No it is not.
Socialism destroy capital...like in Venezuela.
If you want to talk about ways to reduce or elliminate crony capitalism, then I would agree with you. There are some things that csn be improved on the current system. It just needs some tweaking but not to destroy the whole system. Capitalism is the most successful economic model that has brought a higher standard of living for the most number of people.
+1000000000000000000000000, democratic socialism is an OXYMORON.
That's where we believe the confusion lies. In Democratic Socialism, capitalism is a critical element to success. No one will go after the means of production like what happens in a fully socialist regime, as is what happened in a very corrupt Venezuela.
In fact, entrepreneurship is actually stronger because of the social safety net that exists. People willing to open small business do not need to worry about losing their health insurance if they fail at trying to open said small business.
What you are missing is the “incentive” element of capitalism. The reason someone will take a risk and start a business is the profit motive. He is willing to bet the farm for the potential of a huge return in profits. In order to have this democratic socialism safety net, you will need to tax the “rich” to pay for it. Hence, you just remove some of the incentive. A person would be less likely to risk his life savings to start a business if he knows that if he succeeded, his profits will be capped and taxed at a higher rate.
The other side of the equation is competition. If a business is taxed at a higher rate than his competitor overseas, he is less likely to succeed.
Profit is one motive for starting a small business, but not the only one. My family has started a few small businesses and passion, the desire to be your own boss, and creating something that is your own were just as important as making a profit.
It's odd that in the 60's that people did start their own businesses when the tax rate on the highest income rates were as high as 77%. Was the United States considered a socialist nation back in the 60's? Or did that tax rate keep wealth inequality in check while still allowing a few entrepreneurs the ability to become very rich? It's a fair question to ask. Were we considered a socialist country?
With international business more of a factor in today's age, your point about competition could have more relevancy. I won't disagree with you there.
Yes, that is a fair question. And what did Kennedy, a Democratic president, propose? Let me remind you - tax cuts. His tax cut brought in more revenue to the treasury...
The world is a different place now than the 1960s.
We are a global economy and we must compete with cheaper labor elsewhere...and lower corp. taxes in most other nations.
To be competitive, we needed tax reform and the Trump tax reform is the right thing to do at this time. It is the reason for the economic resurgence in our country and a gdp of over 3%...
Have you heard of the Laffer curve. Look it up. It explains why a higher tax rate is not linear.
"No one will go after the means of production like what happens in a fully socialist regime"
Not sure if you consider the "Green New Deal" to be Democratic Socialism, but some of that concept:
"The right to quality health care which will be achieved through a single-payer Medicare-for-All program." <Bye, by the health insurance field. Nationalized,>
"The right to a tuition-free, quality, federally funded, local controlled public education system from pre-school through college." <Bye bye for profit schools; all to be coontrolled by govt.
"create a federal bank with local branches to take over homes with distressed mortgages" <govt. to create a bank to take over all failed mortgages. Another industry gone>
"The right to accessible and affordable utilities – heat, electricity, phone, internet, and public transportation – through democratically run, publicly owned utilities that operate at cost, not for profit." <This one catches several major industries all in one blow nationalizing several entire industries>
"This means we'll nationalize the private bank-dominated Federal Reserve Banks and place them under a Monetary Authority within the Treasury Department." <nationalize part of the banking system>
"Support the formation of federal, state, and municipal public-owned banks that function as non-profit utilities." <create a new system of govt. banks to "compete" with private, for profit banks>
Looks to me like this "green deal" is mostly about nationalizing everything it can get it's hands on.
"The right to employment through a Full Employment Program that will create 25 million jobs by implementing a nationally funded, but locally controlled direct employment initiative replacing unemployment offices with local employment offices offering public sector jobs which are "stored" in job banks in order to take up any slack in private sector employment." <Creation of 25 million public sector jobs. As they can only come in competition with private sector, more "nationalization, though hidden>
Having the right to something is not the same as eliminating other options. For example, tuition is free at state colleges for those making under a certain amount here in New York now, but that doesn't mean that all the private colleges have suddenly gone bankrupt. The statements you make are just false based on the reality.
Well, I don't know if they are false or not: I took the statements (copied and pasted) from this site, which seems legit:
Yes, the rights they look to afford are there. Then you added the belief that the government would control all those areas. That's where the confusion and falsity enters. Giving the right to something, as we do here with education in New York, does not put the private sector out of business. They can both coexist. So I don't disagree with what you copied, just what you believe the outcomes will be.
Oh my god. That's the most insane document I've read.
Most countries in Europe are Social-Democratic countries. So the system works.
It is a capitalistic system with a human face. Which means a decent minimum wage, proper insurance rights for employees, a good law for the unemployed, rents that are not to high, education that is affordable for everybody.
That´s why you have a government, to regulate a country. If you really want a free market economy you do not need a government. This was tried out in South-America in the 70's Pinochet was advised by Milton Friedman and we all know what a disaster that was.
No, you have to regulate a capitalistic system. But I think that regulation is a dirty word in the US. The same with socialism.
The same as pure capitalism does not work, so pure socialism won´t work as it has the tendency to become conservative and will not stimulate new ideas.
But put them both in the mix and they will help each other. The capitalistic part will promote growth and entrepreneurship and the socialistic part will promote the wealth evenly spread.
As for a good economy, money has to be spent on products. If you have too many poor people in a country. they won´t help the economy as they don´t have money to spent. So a good minimum wage will stimulate the economy. Same with unemployment benefits, sickleave and other social regulations.
"It is a capitalistic system with a human face. Which means a decent minimum wage, proper insurance rights for employees, a good law for the unemployed, rents that are not to high, education that is affordable for everybody."
Except that needs re-worded to take the spin out of it and express what is truly being demanded.
1. "decent minimum wage" becomes a wage high enough to support a family in comparative luxury without regard to the value of work produced.
2. "proper insurance rights for employees" means top notch health insurance paid for by employers in addition to that luxurious minimum wage. Unsaid is what happens to the mom and pop shop that does not produce the company income sufficient to add those enormous costs.
3. "a good law for the unemployed" Unless this means support for those that do not wish to work I have no idea what it means.
4. "rents that are not to high" changes to rents so low that they require subsidy by others in order to keep and maintain the building.
5. "education that is affordable for everybody" becomes education through 4 years of college (if not indefinite) paid for by someone other than the student.
Yes, both capitalism and socialism require regulation. But the idea of "democratic" socialism is nothing more than taking from one to give to another. A guarantee that you can have nearly anything you want (as opposed to need) without effort, simply by taking it from someone that does have it.
I'll add that holding European countries up as shining examples isn't very honest: Greece required a great deal of wealth from other countries and a half dozen others are rapidly approaching the same thing. It is inevitable when citizens demand, and get, more than they produce; someone else has to foot the bill.
Uff, You have an amazing imagination Wilderness.
let´s play the same game.
1. "Decent minimum wage" becomes $1.00 an hour.
2. "proper insurance rights for employees" means free flower bouquet in the hospital if you lose your foot because a truck run over it by accident.
3. "a good law for the unemployed" of course I meant a plastic coffee cup on the corner of 42 street.
4. "rents that are not too high" - of course I was talking about the commercial market, forget council flats.
5. "education that is affordable for everybody" - with everybody I meant everybody with an income higher then 500.000 a year. those students can actually study and don´t have to work at the same time. Those who earn less are to stupid to learn anyway.
I guess this is more to your liking.
In spite of a long history of how and why they began, as well as what socialist regimes always come to, there are those who want to see America turn from a Republic to a socialist government. Their various motives are an interesting study, but often the main leaders of such movements live quite high while asking followers to fund their work. Many of the followers know nothing of the definition of socialism or its historical effects in other places.
Washington told the new nation that they were involved in the Great America Experiment. Unparalleled opportunity and unheard of freedoms rose from his words. In spite of failures no other nation offers its people, or other peoples for that matter, what America offers.
It is possible to live in a socialist country even today, we just don't want people to have to do it here. Some of those countries embrace immigrants willing to give up their citizenship. Masses of their people would gladly change places with an American if they could. Experience with other forms of government drove people to America. Studying why they appreciated the opportunity to come is an eyeopening and worthy exercise.
Makes good sense, Peterstreep, thanks for sharing...
The Right in America have long been duped by their Corporate masters.
The funny thing is there is no free market capitalism in the US. The US government sponsors with huge amounts of money the agricultural sector, the weapon industry, the medical industry, the computer industry etc.
Imagine if the US Government suddenly stopped giving money to all those companies. It would mean that many farmers would go bankrupt, General Motors would go bankrupt and thousands of other companies who rely heavenly on government money would collapse.
In this way the US is an regulating country.
But the question is. Is the government money regulated in a fair way.
So if the US is giving money to so many companies, why do so many people have a problem when the money is spent on the individual by giving them more support in education, healthcare, insurance and housing, water, electricity?
How about we mininalize government, government programs, and taxation?
How about we move away from socialization, and stay true to the 'right to pursue happiness'?
You have a right to Life, meaning no one should be able to take it away from you (kill you), a right to Liberty, meaning you have a right to choose your own destiny and not be beholden to someone else, including the government (so long as you don't infringe upon others), and to pursue Happiness.
No where in there is anything about having to give up half of what I earn, so that it can be given to someone else who did nothing to earn it.
More Socialization means more Taxation.
More Taxation means the WORKERS have to carry more of the burden and have less for themselves.
The RICH never pay, they move their money overseas, they move to another country, they sink it into corporations, that's the way it has worked for a long time.
Venezuela is a prime example of what can happen when Socialism gets too advanced in a nation, it destroys everything for everyone and only the 1% have anything, the rest suffer in misery.
Socialism, Social Capitalism, however you want to label it, only works when you have a steady and stable economy, with a certain level of checks and balances, and a consistent population and culture that supports it.
Most Soc. Cap. nations in Europe or elsewhere that you might be inclined to point to today are facing upcoming hardships and a failing welfare state simple because they made the mistake of allowing outside forces to unbalance their systems.
Sweden for example in its generosity to try and help others has taken in between 1.5 and 2 million 'refugees' which are being supported by a welfare state that has no ability to support for any length of time a sudden 10-20% shift in its population (Sweden has under 10 million people).
This will cause the state to either A) Dramatically increase taxation on its citizens, taking from them what is rightfully theirs. or B) Drastically increase its Debt to the EU or other foreign entity.
Either way, it will likely pursue both eventually, before ultimately succumbing to economic recession, depression, or collapse.
Interestingly, China is a socialist capitalist state that is currently pursuing the interment of millions of Muslim citizens and incorporating a 'social currency' on its 1.5 billion citizens that will decide the fate of each and every person living in China, where they can go, what they can do, whether or not they thrive, survive, or suffer.
Socialism is another word for enslavement in my opinion, the rich remain rich, and all the rest become poor.
Only a system that rewards effort and ingenuity, hardwork and sacrifice will allow people to truly prosper and find happiness. For those who can't, or those who won't, they should not be the reason why those who do and can have what they earn stolen from them.
I can get on board with a decrease in government spending if you can get on board with that including the military complex. We're running a trillion dollar deficit as is, so we should be doing that before any thoughts of increasing spending under whatever system of government we choose.
When CEO's are paid 20 million dollar salaries and worker wages stay stagnant, I disagree that is effort, ingenuity, hard work, or sacrifice. I just call that greed or exploitation.
'A CEO is paid 20 million, and its workers wages stay stagnant'...
That does not infringe upon my rights, that does not increase my taxes, and that does not infringe upon anyone pursuing their own company, their own opportunity. Those workers who don't like it can go elsewhere... if they all united and fought for better pay, their wages would increase. Its an irrelevant issue.
Trump has fought to get NATO to pay its share and for the U.S. taxpayer not to carry their burden, he is trying to extricate America from its involvement in Syria, Iraq, etc. which would lessen the military expenses... all he seems to be getting for it is extra grief.
Understanding that the 'Military Industrial Complex' that Eisenhower warned the nation about, is alive and well, and has its finger on American politics and government expenses more than any other entity does, explains why we spend so much on the military.
I think a strong force is good, I think one deployed all over the world is what allows the American Dollar to remain the world's Reserve Currency and allows us to have the standard of living we currently do here in America... that's just reality.
If it weren't for our Military, China would be assuming global control of the world, our economy would collapse, and our standard of living would sink to what Russian citizens currently enjoy, or worse.
'A CEO is paid 20 million, and its workers wages stay stagnant'...
'That does not infringe upon my rights, that does not increase my taxes, and that does not infringe upon anyone pursuing their own company, their own opportunity. Those workers who don't like it can go elsewhere... if they all united and fought for better pay, their wages would increase. Its an irrelevant issue.'
Go elsewhere? Like jobs are just that easy to get, right? You're starting to sound like a Trump cabinet member during the shutdown. Hey, just go take one of those other jobs you've got lined up after taking out a loan while you're between jobs.
Stagnant wages while cost of living continues to increase may be irrelevant to you, but it's a pertinent issue to many in the middle class. I have major issues with that kind of wealth inequality where corporations only reward top management. Higher taxation can address the issue without workers needing to risk their own careers.
I've seen the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China advertising the RMB as "the world currency". Of course, this kind of posturing is only the tip of a massive iceberg.
Thank you, Ken. I KNOW this but the Leftists REFUSE to ACKNOWLEDGE & LEARN this. More taxation isn't the answer but cutting social/welfare programs, this instituted Obama"care", & other free amenities would help the American economy tremendously. The middle class is taxed into oblivion because of these inane social/welfare programs.
"What Americans who support “socialism” actually want is what the rest of the world calls social democracy: A market economy, but with extreme hardship limited by a strong social safety net and extreme inequality limited by progressive taxation. They want us to look like Denmark or Norway, not Venezuela."
In brief, this what I'm looking to support as we move towards 2020. Capitalism is fine. Having the middle class pick up the tab for low-wage workers that can't survive without social programs while the corporate elitists move their money overseas (to avoid taxes and refrain from making a contribution to the country, system, and people that support the environment that lets them operate as they do) is not.
+10000000000000000000000000000. There is a SOLUTION to this-REDUCE SOCIAL & WELFARE programs by at least 85%. People should EARN their way or STARVE, pure & simple! Poor people have done without in the past- it made them stronger & gave them the INCENTIVE to move out of poverty. It is time to drastically reduce these social/welfare programs-when poor people realize that there is no social net for them- they will do without but that deprivation will strengthen them to do better!
I'm open to a solid plan that reduces social welfare and the number of government employees (which in my opinion is the biggest social welfare program in existence which also serves to garner illegitimate support for the corruption in the system). I also agree that everyone that can should be contributing. Where it gets complicated is that as the oligarchy continued to become entrenched, there are going to be less jobs that provide a path out of poverty (lower unemployment alone isn't indicative of a pathway out of poverty). That's not to mention the coming advancements in automation and AI. In my opinion, without addressing corporate welfare and tax evasion, I can't see even the best calculated plan for cutting social programs succeeding.
Do you understand that you are advocating a fascist doctrine GMWilliams? I do not use the word fascism in the popular way.
What I mean is that you advocate that the strong survive and the weak can die. The strong are born strong and have every right on the richness they have, They are entitled to use slaves as they are weak.
The weak and ill have deserved their fate as well. Why should you give a poor person an expensive cancer treatment, he/she has not deserved this.
Do you understand how dangerous this line of thought is?
Do you not understand how dangerous the opposite line of thought is? Wherein one need not work and produce, need not support themselves, need not provide what they need, but instead depend and require that someone else do it for them? Without incentive few people will labor hard to provide for themselves, and even when there is incentive the labor required so far outpaces the rewards that fewer and fewer will do it.
Somewhere in the middle lies the right answer, but we've swing so far to the left that it is no longer a viable answer. When we supply cradle to grave support that incentive, absolutely necessary, is dying and dying rapidly.
Most people want to work Wilderness, most people are incredibly unhappy when they do not work.
But for those who are for whatever reason not able to support themselves, may it be temporary or longer period, there should be some form of help. This can be in many forms. Offering a course in computer skills, plumbing or whatever that could upgrade their prospects.
A lot of people do volunteer work when on the dole and find in the end a job related to the volunteer work.
If you throw them away like gmwilliams is suggesting you come up with more crime and more beggars and crazy people on the street. And on top of that, you create a class system of winners and losers.
I do not want to live in a world where you are only judged by the number on your bank account. Where people are only seen as commodities.
The answer is not easy, and I do agree with you that it lies somewhere in the middle. That´s why I prefer a social capitalistic system. As pure free market capitalism does not work and neither pure socialism.
And with the government we have today, where corporations now have the Supreme Court approved ability to donate to politicians, where lobbyists and foreign representatives donate hundreds of millions to politicians like the Clintons through their 'non profit charities' … that is NEVER going to happen.
Corporations, banks and the elites will avoid taxation, the politicians will pass the increased taxes onto the working class, to support an ever growing number of unproductive welfare recipients that grow by the millions thanks to open borders and no enforcement of labor laws.
The arguments made for additional social services and additional taxes are made by the ignorant, or by the brainwashed inexperienced university students and their ilk. People like Ocasio Cortez who has shown repeatedly to be clueless when it comes to even the most basic concepts of budgets and economics.
All unicorns and rainbows, ideals and agendas, with no concept for how anything in the world really works.
The reality of how these things work, and how quickly an entire nation can go from global leader/ideal to economic and social hardships can happen almost overnight.
Look at Sweden... in 2014 it was the ideal of the 'Western world', today it is teetering towards economic and social turmoil just 5 years later:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles … fare-state
It wasn't so long ago Venezuela was held up as the model to aspire to by our own President (Obama). Today there are few places worse in the world a person could be stuck:
https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opini … 09403.html "Chavez has used his majority not only to leave the IMF but also to nationalize most of the country's national resources in order to fund social programs that have led to, among many other things, the eradication of illiteracy and the creation of medical clinics throughout the nation."
It was a glorious example of the wonders socialism could bring... and today we see in Venezuela what that moment of idyllic prosperity costs long term, as so many other failed attempts have shown in the past.
I agree with a lot of what you've written here as bleak as it is. The corruption of government officials hand in hand with corporations is prevailing and it would take one hell of a movement by overworked and exhausted citizens to stand any chance at change. Without the fruits of the American workforce coming back into the country, we're unlikely to have a sustainable social safety net (especially if the population dependent on social programs keeps increasing). Sweden certainly has a challenge on its hands now and yes, Venezuela is in big trouble. So with your prediction that the elites will continue to shift the burdens of the nation onto an already strained middle class, what do you see as the outcome?
I suspect that the outcome will ultimately be a 'socialized' Impoverishment of all but the top 1% - 2%.
Zbigniew Brzezinski, former advisor to Presidents Johnson, Carter, and Reagan (held a variety of top roles/positions in all their Administrations) he wrote many books (when read today they may seem overly simplistic but back then they were considered insightful and cutting edge) BETWEEN TWO AGES, OUT OF CONTROL,and many more. His books and beliefst helped shape the direction our country and world have taken.
Others like Henry Kissinger, have had equal and deep impact on the direction national and international policy has moved toward.
To understand where we may be heading, one should understand their beliefs as best one can, and review their writings and interviews. Those two men, more than any President or Administration, have set us on the course we are on today.
China is implementing a 'Social Credit' system on its entire populace, facial recognition, every transaction made, every word uttered, is recorded, collected, and judged. I have written an article or two about it, if one wants to know where our future is headed, I suggest researching the topic.
I see a ruling class, an international brotherhood of billionaires and trillionaires (less than 1%), then the 1-2% that do their bidding, the global leaders and Hollywood stars, the elites. And then there will be the other 98%, much the way it is today actually, but with less freedom, more restrictions, and swifter punishment for those who step out of line.
When I review the Social Credit system and how it will impact China, within a generation or two, they should be able to ensure that those with character traits they do not like are unable to succeed in society, indeed, they will be unable to reproduce (have children), and this in turn should cull unwanted characteristics from their populace in short order, making the general populace far more compliant and controllable... much like domesticated cattle. The unwanted traits will be bread out of humans, and only those with the most favorable or wanted traits will advance.
I see 'Western Society' in decline and Asia (China - Japan) on the rise.
The fall of the EU and America appears today to be inevitable as we pursue hardcore feminist agendas that fracture our society and we denigrate all 'Western values' as patriarchal or oppressive, while raising up non-western beliefs and deferring to them no matter how oppressive they may be. When you attack the foundation upon which your society, economy, and civilization is built upon, eventually everything built upon it will crumble.
While the West is pursuing its own demise, China, Japan and others are sealing their borders, allowing no outsiders (refugees, migrants, whatever label you prefer) access. Their education systems are focused on valuable areas of productivity (IE - STEM - code, mathematics, engineering) while the 'west' higher learning is ever shifting towards worthless endeavors (IE - gender norming, social rights, safe spaces).
One is advancing technologically while preserving its identity and controlling its borders, while the other is capitulating to everything and anything that challenges it. Those attempting to defend the West's foundation are villainized by the very people who are served and protected by what that foundation upholds.
It would be very interesting to visit the world a hundred years from now, I suspect it would be as unrecognizable to me then, as North America would would be unrecognizable to those who roamed it 250 years ago.
bit of topic.
The Social Credit system has nothing to do with social democracy.
In a way the west already has this "social credit system". Who can stop Facebook and Google?
I just read "The circle" an interesting book about a possible outline of the near future whee privacy is a thing of the past.
That future sounds as bleak as the one I thought you were alluding to earlier. No wonder we have militarized police to prod the populace back onto their treadmills.
I've lived in China for about 4 years and got a first hand look at where the social credit system (among other things are headed). It's pretty dark but then I also see the US combining open records laws, credit reports, spying and the like and molding it all into something that is more akin to Pepsi vs. Cherry Pepsi as opposed to freedom vs. oppression.
I would love to see the US to become a beacon of freedom by taking the opposite path China is taking. Let's lead by example and work on restoring freedoms and protecting privacy, rather than sinking into the depths of Patriot Acts, NDAAs, surveillance, etc.
Brzezinski and Kissinger certainly left their mark (scar might be a better term) on the Earth. It's hard to say what would have happened if other schools of thought had prospered but it seems it seems we are paying a heavy price for a world being shaped in accordance with their vision.
Just because you put "democratic" in front of a bad idea doesn't mean it magically becomes good. It's still socialism, it's still theft, and it still destroys economies.
Bernie Sanders calls himself a Socialist. When pressed about the famine, starvation, suffering, misery, and death that Socialism wrought in the 20th Century, which was vastly worse than anything that ever before befell mankind in human history, Bernie says he is different because he is a “Democratic Socialist.” I can appreciate the New Socialists adding the word “Democratic” to their name to distance themselves from the Socialists who murdered 100 million people. But I have been studying the Manifesto of the Democratic Socialists of America. Here is what the Democratic Socialists say they want:
"A world free from capitalism" "We reject private profit" "Eradicate the sources of inequality" "Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity" "Equalize wealth and income" "State ownership of what is now Private Property" "State ownership and control of the major economic institutions of society -- the large corporations" "State ownership [Communism] and/or direct control [Fascism] of the economic resources of society" "State control over all private resources, including all land, insurance, credit, raw materials, manufacturing infrastructure, and all existing financial institutions" "Global government across national boundaries to ensure that wages, working conditions, environmental standards and social rights are the same worldwide" "Massive redistribution of income from corporations and the wealthy to wage earners and the poor" "Eliminate Religion, especially Judaism, Christianity, and Islam--the belief in an invisible being in the sky."
NOW, you tell me how this is different from what Socialists and Communists have always wanted?
"Here is what the Democratic Socialists say they want:
"A world free from capitalism" "We reject private profit" "Eradicate the sources of inequality" "Eliminate Free Enterprise and private charity" "Equalize wealth and income" "State ownership of what is now Private Property".
I suspect many here will want to disagree with Democratic Socialists in how they define themselves! Yet, Bernie wouldn't SAY that he wants to eliminate free enterprise, nor would most of the others. So then, they have an agenda that they're not openly espousing.
Once again, it's what the "scared and confused" right has been saying all along.
Democratic socialism, if capitalism, seems to have a desire to have government penalize capitalistic endeavor, the more you work and the more you make, the higher percentage you pay. It would also restructure society in a way that gives the ruling elite the same lopsided power the corporate elite now enjoy. There would still be a1%, but that 1% would consist of bureaucrats and politicians. We'd lose all oversight and, eventually, most freedoms.
Count me forever out.
The ruling elite and corporate elite are one in the same.
Yes. And with socialism, your preferred style, we just remove the word corporate from the equation, let the government control everything, to at least a certain degree,and we'll watch it all collapse. Then we can eat from garbage in the street. Just like Venezuelans.
Not even one cachapa to be had amongst us.
"let the government control everything, "
This is a false representation of Democratic Socialism, which is the subject of this thread.
Over crony Capitalism which you are willing to let exploit us all into the ground, you cannot see that the big money people run everything, the very people the capitalists and conservatives want to protect for sinister reasons of their own.
So, let's not go down the holier than thou road. We will just see what the electorate says in 2020. And if the Rightwinger and their perspective loses, you'll step aside quietly?
The "Government" at its ideal represent the will of majority of the people it is supposed to serve, not some kind of alien entity that conservatives like to paint. Who does the corporate entity represent outside the desires of a relative hand ful of greedy, power driven fat cats?
And they would love a Socialist state and Government control, then the 99% of us would be equally poor, while they live their superior lives.
Open Borders means lower wages and less rights, Globalism means lower wages and less rights, Socialism, Social Currency, Social programs lead to less rights, higher taxes and ultimately the right of the 1% to rule over the 99% slave labor class.
So in NY, when the state offers free tuition for those families earning under a certain limit, clearly a socialist program, how does that make them into the slave labor class?
Nothing is free, someone is paying for it.
As it happens I know far more than I ever wanted to know about NY, its taxation, and social support systems.
It is why I, and many millions of others have fled that state, and why even the governor (Cuomo) was out there crying about taxation last week.
I live in a state where we make the same amount of household income that we made in NY. But we pay 20,000 dollars less in taxes every year.
So long as there is an alternative, I will never live in a state like NY, and will vote to prevent its corruption and politics from infecting this state.
Yes, someone is paying for it with a decision to use collected taxes to help educate its citizenry. So while you may be able to accept a 12 billion dollar government bailout for farmers as not socialism but a 163 million dollar expense to help educate students as such, we will just have to disagree about what is a proper investment of government collected taxation.
As for your new state, I hope the education is as strong as NY, the state parks as well funded, and the largest city as safe as NYC. Those great things cost money to maintain and some of us accept that as a good use of our higher tax levels.
Why have free college tuition? That is ridiculous. There should only be scholarships for those who earn it. The rest if their parents can't afford college tuition, can WORK their way through college, pure &simple. I am TAXED ENOUGH, thank you!
There is a post-graduation requirement to work in New York equal to the length of the award. So if you qualify and accept the award for all four years, you have to stay and work in NY for four years after graduation or repay the award amount.
So, Ken, what have we got now that so worth maintaining?
That pretty much sums up problem #1 and is why the Democratic Socialists have my ear. At least they aren't afraid to speak about trying to address money in politics. While it may seem an impossible battle, ignoring the problem completely certainly isn't going to lead to a victory.
+1000000000000000000000000000000000, Live to Learn.
Greedy capitalists are the ones who have given the world every modern innovation we enjoy. Do you think Bill Gates invented Microsoft because he was motivated by good feelings? Steven Jobs didn't create Apple because he wanted to share his love of computer innovations. Thomas Edison and Henry Ford were not out to just help society. Get a grip. Greed and the quest to bet the best is what has helped capitalism bring forth almost every modern innovation we enjoy today. We need MORE greedy capitalists to create things and make life easier. So what if they they get rich? They also pay a lot of taxes, start companies and hire workers who pay taxes. Greedy capitalism is what motivates success in every industry in the world. Democratic socialism appeals to people who can't succeed at the level they would like so they have to try and bring down successful people.
All those examples you listed of people innovating was under a tax rate of at least 70% for top earners. It seems that innovation was not dissuaded because people would have to pay more in taxes. Thank you for proving my point.
I would like to point out that when tax rates were 90 percent during the late 1950s and early 1960s people were able to still keep quite a bit of their money. Why? The tax code was very different. The wealthy had to pay a tax rate of 90 percent, but were able to write off things you wouldn't even imagine today. So, yeah they paid a 90 percent tax rate and with the tax code that was in place at the time, they were able to write off about 89 percent of it and keep that money. So, it looked good on paper. With Democratic socialism there are far more controls on society.
Actually I think you made my point. With more wealthy people comes more taxes and with more taxes come more benefit to citizens. So, again my point is, we need greedy capitalists to invent things and pay large amount of taxes. We need to encourage people to become wealthy greedy capitalists. The more freedom they have to pursue their interests, the more we all benefit.
Amen for actual facts from the IRS....
IRS microdata from the year 1960 confirms the following interesting facts:
In 1960, the top 1% of households earned 9% of all income, and paid 13% of all taxes. (In 2008, the top 1% earned 20% of all income, and paid 38% of all taxes.)
The top marginal tax rate in 1960 was 91%, which applied to income over $200,000 (for single filers) or $400,000 (for married filers) – thresholds which correspond to approximately $1.5 million and $3 million, respectively, in today’s dollars. Approximately 0.00235% of households had income taxed at the top rate.
A taxpayer at the very bottom of the top 1% (in other words, one who is right on the boundary between the 98th and 99th percentiles) had a nominal income of $24,435, or about $190,000 in today’s dollars. (In 2008, this figure was nominally $380,354, or $400,000 in current dollars.)
I agree with everything you posted above.
It doesn't cover the difference in the tax codes between then and now.
The 90 percent people paid in taxes was given back to them at an extremely high rate because of things they could do to decrease their tax burden.
EXACTLY, Mike. Democratic socialism which is an OXYMORON is for failure who don't have either the impetus nor intellect to succeed.
The alt-right white nationalists like Trump and his Communist Russian Republicans in congress are frightened to death of Strong Intelligent Dems like Alexandria Ocasio Cortez and Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris and Beto O'Rourke and Kirsten Gillibrand and the POWERFULL Progressive Democratic WAVE of Righteousness who are now in a position to END the good ole' days of the filthy rich using their perverted version of SOCIALISM to rake in TRILLIONS by doing nothing more than enslaving American Workers then leaving them out on the cold dark streets while ALL OUR Cash gets boxed up and shipped to foreign lands: INTOLERABLE:
Progressive Democrats are on the verge of CANCELLING Mr. Trumps / Republicans criminally insane "Corporate Welfare Socialism Scheme" which Mr. Trump and Communist Russian Republicans in congress had the unconscionable gall to pass through congress a short time ago when the GOP was in control: This INSANE and perhaps unlawful legislation transferred trillions of our wealth AWAY from essential Health-Care, Education and Infrastructure and straight into the Ugly GREEDY hands of the Steve Mnuchins of the world, this will END soon: Nancy Pelosi vowed to UNDUE this INSANE Trillion Dollar giveaway to the filthy rich and use said money where its actually needed and if Steve Mnuchin has a problem with that he can MOVE to Communist Russia where he and his Republicans belong:
I keep wondering where the outrage is about corporate welfare as this author describes:
https://www.forbes.com/sites/taxanalyst … eac9627ddd
There seems to be such outrage for individual welfare which is minuscule in comparison. Is it just that people think making a stand against the rich and powerful is too difficult, so the poor are a more realistic target?
Great article and it has whet my appetite for more like them.
"Narrow business interests manipulate government policymakers, and those interests prosper to the detriment of everyone else. Free markets be damned"
It is just as I have always suspected, this from a reputable source.
I don't give a rats a$$ about the 1 percent and their incessant whining about being taxed out of existence, while all they do is export jobs abroad anyway. What is the cost of these subsidies to the tax payer and why should I support them yet be up an arms over "welfare queens"? The political Right makes me sick to my stomach.
You will get in trouble posting articles like this as it starkly revealsthe true nature of the Corporate Class and the ruthless course it takes to lord over us all. It catches a lot of conservatives and their inane arguments with their britches down, to say the least
Good sleuthing, thanks Eastward..
And that outrage concerning this reality should be reflected in how we vote. And you can bet for me, it will be.
Because I am concerned about the remaining 99 percent, I need Warren in there to help bash some chops. Because we all know that it is "clobbering time".
Excerpt from a infopedia article
"In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.[3"
Tell me true, Rightwinger, is this what you mean by encroaching Socialism?
So what about this, so much for the Titans of industry earning their wealth, right?
Glad you found the article useful, Credence2. It really is something how the large can corporations can pay low wages, have the working/middle class pick up the tab for food stamps and social programs, and move the profits into offshore tax havens (and to do so without widespread public outcry). Looking at the numbers from the infopedia article, you'd think we'd see a lot more comments about corporate welfare and less about individuals being on the dole. I mean, we're talking about the repercussions of corporate figures buying policy and policymakers vs. Joe Smith getting some fresh shrimp instead of canned tuna with his EBT card. Maybe both are an issue but it seems clear to me which one should take priority.
Warren did come out swinging as she announced her presidential bid. Gabbard is calling out the military industrial complex. We have Bernie watching from his position as the most popular politician in the country, waiting to make his move. It could be an interesting 2020 and this is going to be at the top of the list of issues I'm looking at too.
A few more finds I think you may be interested to see as they demonstrate even many among the wealthy think things have swung too far in their favor at the expense of the country and the middle class:
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/warren-buf … her-taxes/
"Billionaire investor Warren Buffett wants to pay higher taxes.
In an op-ed in the New York Times, the chairman and CEO of Berkshire Hathaway urged politicians in Washington to raise taxes on the "mega-rich" who have been "coddled long enough by a billionaire-friendly Congress."
Buffett, who has repeatedly argued for higher taxes on the rich, said the tax rate on his 2010 taxable income was about 17.4 percent, lower than any of the other people who work for him. Their rates ranged from 33 percent to 41 percent, he said."
"The Patriotic Millionaires
Proud “traitors to their class,” members of the Patriotic Millionaires are high-net worth Americans, business leaders, and investors who are united in their concern about the destabilizing concentration of wealth and power in America. The mission of The Patriotic Millionaires organization is to build a more stable, prosperous, and inclusive nation by promoting public policies based on the “first principles” of equal political representation, a guaranteed living wage for all working citizens, and a fair tax system"
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2012/ … x-the-rich
Bestselling novelist Stephen King, who gives away $4m (£2.5m) a year in charitable donations, has issued an expletive-filled call to America to increase the rate of tax paid by the country's rich.
King himself currently pays taxes of around 28% on his income, and at a recent rally in Florida wondered publicly why he was not paying a higher rate of 50%. You're unhappy about it? "Cut a check and shut up," was the response from his listeners, the author writes in a piece for The Daily Beast entitled Tax Me, for F@%&'s Sake! "If you want to pay more, pay more, they said. Tired of hearing about it, they said. Tough shit for you guys, because I'm not tired of talking about it. I've known rich people, and why not, since I'm one of them? The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno' than pay one more cent in taxes to Uncle Sugar."
I should refer to you as "Clint Eastward" the man that shoot holes in the fundamental premises of conservatives and rightwingers.
The article was more that useful, it was prophetic. This gets to very root of my problems with Conservatives in the economic debate.
Totally absurd, I worry about somebody buying lobster with an EPT card, a specious argument to be sure, while the rich fat cats have been ripping us off on a scale at exponential levels as compared to the single Mom trying to feed her kids.
Both parties are in way responsible for "this outrage", but only Warren and Sanders are addressing these disparities in our "system", and explicetely point to the need to correct.
Thanks again for renewing my ammunition cache in my never ending struggle against the Right.
Your anger is misplaced. conservatives are the friend of the down trodden. We want to teach people to fish instead of giving them a fish. You are correct about the abuses at the top of the food chain...but guess what, most of them are liberal democrats...and moderate Republicans. A true conservative will donate most of his fortunes but would not want tax breaks for the rich. It wants tax reduction for the middle class.
A progressive like Warren Buffett wants to raise taxes on all and yet fights to avoid paying corp. taxes...with his many lawyers and accountants.
He is an elite globalist and he is not your friend.
I hear you, Jack, nice bromides that come from your standard McGuffey Reader
How many fishes do I have to give corporate America, when they own a factory full of them?
The 1 percent and their exploitation of the system gets far more support from Conservatives than the Left, we all know that, Jack.
So where is the "outrage" from Conservatives regarding tax payer subsidies to the fat cats?
You will have to PROVE that Democrats and moderate Republicans are responsible, your sole opinion will NOT do.
I am not making a hero out of Warren Buffet, but I support him and people like him that have the courage and honesty to confess that they and their class "game" the system. That makes him more palatable to me than those that bask in the lies and misconception run down on the public.
I have a better chance of finding a passenger pigeon, than one of your "true conservatives".
That's just FALSE jackclee because everyone knows Russian Republicans in congress and this abomination of an illegitimate president could care less about you or anyone else, even though for whatever reason you seem to worship him in perpetuity regardless of his disdain for you and the atrocities he commits for which he'll head straight to the abyss when he departs this dying planet:
His polls are tanking and even republicans are dumping him by the droves and just to prove my point, he's even considering another gov shut down which will destroy even MORE Americans just for a useless pile of concrete that will never be built in a million years:
"The majority would rather douse their dicks with lighter fluid, strike a match, and dance around singing 'Disco Inferno'..."
Oh hell, what a mental picture that produced. That was funny. I am still chuckling.
Had a chuckle at that myself. King certainly has a way with words!
Hi Eastward. I had the same thought relative to King. With a mind that produces thoughts like that it is no wonder he is so successful.
And yes, unfortunately it can get dangerous challenging the 1%:
https://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/ … -1.3680600
"The assassins who killed Panama Papers journalist Daphne Caruana Galizia used a fatal text message sent from a boat out at sea, according to a report.
Authorities on the Mediterranean island of Malta arrested ten people for the explosion last month that killed the lauded 53-year-old blogger known for her criticism of the government.
Three have now been charged, with a report in Malta Today on Wednesday revealing details of the investigation, including how they allegedly set off the powerful bomb on her car."
And one more that fit so well with this conversation, I couldn't pass it up:
U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders
8 February at 08:30 ·
"Under Donald Trump’s tax giveaway to the rich, not only will Netflix pay nothing in federal income taxes, it is on track to receive a $22 million tax refund from the IRS this year. That’s right. If you have a monthly subscription to Netflix, the $10.99 you paid this month is more than Netflix will pay in taxes for the entire year. Meanwhile, Netflix made a record-breaking profit of $845 million. That is unacceptable. It’s time to repeal the Trump tax plan for the top 1 percent and large corporations and make sure they pay their fair share in taxes."
Propaganda at its finest.
First question I have, are the new tax laws in effect for the 2018 taxes that Netflix didn't pay?
Obviously if they are not, its hard to endorse the Trump blame-game.
Second, we need to know the specifics of why they paid no taxes.
Did they deduct 100% of their costs for sham "IP licensing" from a foreign subsidiary?
We need to know the why before concluding what went on, for all we know, the $65 million dollar Netflix deal with former President Barack Obama for his 'memoirs' included 5 years of not having to pay state or federal taxes.
I know... no one cares about the facts, and for sure, they won't be coming from the likes of CNN, or Bernie Sanders.
Certainly this post from Bernie doesn't contain all the detailed information about Netflix. Based on this, I wouldn't condemn the company without having the full picture (within the scope of what is accessible to the public). I wouldn't say it's propaganda as no matter what the reason, it points out the weaknesses of our current tax system in regards to major corporations. I haven't looked through the company's financial records but may do that if I find myself with the time on my hands.
I don't take the word of any politician at face value, but Bernie has been more consistent and reliable than most (no matter what you think of his views). I'm not sure what media outlet you'd prefer that isn't owned by a major corporation and operating with as little bias as we could hope to find but I'm always out to checking out legitimate sources of information.
Again, not the end-all. However, it gives some pretty strong indications against any major foreign IP deductions (or anything else along those lines). It seems as a general practice, they amortize:
Credence, what you don’t understand is that the 1% is needed to help the 99% you say you care about.
If you follow the socialism path that Democrats are embracing today, you will end up with a flight of the 1% to else where and you will bankrupt the country of taxes and innovation and capital that the rest of the 99% will be all equally poor. Is that what you want? The need to punish the greedy would also produce a decline of wealth for the rest, is that OK with you?
If you have a better alternative proposal for an economic system better than Capitalism, I like to hear it. So far, in the 200 years of our country’s existence, we have not seen it.
Some confuses certain government programs for socialism, like social security, medicare, and even the public library....
These are not socialism. They have certain properties that benefits all citizens but the difference is they are not state owned businesses. Socialism is defined as the ownership of the production by the State...
Even though we have programs such as medicaid which benefits a group of people, the services provided by the State is still privately owned such as hospitals and clinics...
It is a social program that we the people voted for and decided to provide a safety net for those less fortunate who cannot pay or fend for themselves.
To make the analogy, in a real socialism country, the hospital would be state owned. The doctors and nurses would be government employees, and everyone would qualify and be required to go to these facilities to get their health care.
I hope this explains the difference. Socialism is not the answer. Yes, we have our problems with the current state of affairs but going to socialism is not the cure but would make things worse, in my opinion.
But, Jack, this is the endless conservative refrain, that the wealthy makes it soooo good for the rest of us. But, I say, lets bring back the guillotine.
I do know the definition of Socialism and that has not really been visited on the United States in any serious way. But most of the rightwingers on this forum are equating what they consider out of control entitlements with "Socialism"
But as I said before, Jack, the real problem is Crony Capitalism, why is my tax money subsidizing so many wealthy interests at my expense? Socialism is ok I guess when the Corporate class want to pay for its losses, but Capitalism, no government interference in business is the rule regarding its profits, stagnating wages, subsidized largesse and outsourcing frenzy.
You folks always talk about self-reliance, how about these big cash cows, why can't they self rely and keep their grubby hands out of the public coffers?
I respect your attempting to clear up this rather stark disparity as I suspect most conservative types are going to make themselves scarce in the face of such damning information.
Socialism may not be the answer, but neither is crony capitalism which as it applies to the wealthy and corporate America, with the incredible transfer of wealth to these entities is the real threat of "socialism". Leaving the current system uncorrected is a non-starter, I will take my chances embracing the very concepts the Conservatives fear most.
I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I think the debate should be based on fact.
From fact checking site politifact.com:
"No, Donald Trump did not call Republican voters dumb in the 1990s"
By Samantha Putterman on Tuesday, December 18th, 2018 at 12:11 p.m.
Donald Trump has made plenty of questionable claims over the years, but calling Republican voters dumb isn’t one of them. Still, one political meme continues to spread across social media sites and claims he said just that.
The story goes that in a 1998 interview with People Magazine, Donald Trump said he was considering a run for president and would do so as a Republican because "They’re the dumbest group of voters in the country. They believe anything on Fox News. I could lie and they’d still eat it up. I bet my numbers would be terrific."
The post was flagged as part of Facebook’s efforts to combat false news and misinformation on its News Feed.
The meme features a repurposed image of a younger Trump, with the quote billed as a statement he delivered in an interview with the magazine.
So did Donald Trump actually say that – or anything like it? No, the quote is bogus.
We searched People’s archives, which date back to the 1970s, and found no Trump interviews in 1998 – or any other time – that feature that quote or anything resembling it.
What?!?! You mean the pretty meme's aren't all true?! Say it isn't so!
One does have to understand that meme's are used, not to communicate reality and truth, but to spread disinformation. They are intended to convince a reader that a falsehood is true, they are intended to spread hatred without reason. They are an argument based on emotion and lie, hardly ever truth.
Yep, memes are worthless for spreading facts. Anyone can produce or copy a meme.....or no one, in some's case.
I think you're really just upset because in a few short months AOC has fueled more memes than Sarah Plain got over her entire career.
That's nothing, we only get Trump for four years, maybe eight. But the stupidity of AOC will keep going and going forever...
You'll be unfortunate to have him for 4 years....
So you'll vote Independent next time? Go Schultz!
Maybe. At least she represents a relatively small congressional district. Palin was the GOP's choice to be second in line for the presidency. And now look who represents them in the White House.
But, hey, you all can waste your time being triggered by an inconsequential (so far) new congressional representative while the Dems focus on policy and a lame President attempts to declare an emergency for his stupid vanity wall.
The contrast is startling and obvious.
But this meme is cute. To tie that facial expression with that caption was meme genius.
That's all I have. You can get back to the stupid vanity wall tangent now. ;-)
Yeah if you call destroying 25,000 jobs in her first couple of months inconsequential.
wow, she single-handedly did that? Maybe she is deserving of all this angst from you guys if she is already that powerful.
That's why the right feels threatened, Hx! They're not accustomed to any of their politicians being described in this manner.
Liberals are always focused on outside appearance, they don't even care if the policy works.
This photo is a great example of what all liberals look like.
Just where do you place yourself in the scheme of things, aa? You never say but seem to detest the left more than the right with your cute little memes. Simply a complainer rather than an explainer? Do tell..
I'm baffled why people think she's a big deal.
I think it is because she provides great soundbites promisem.
Who would you rather look at Gus, AOC or Mitch McConnell?
From my perspective, Bernie, AOC and de Blasio are all wacko, holding similar political views. However, AOC vents a great deal. That's what gets my attention. That, and I like brunettes.
As a direct result of despicable Republican Socialism in disguise as "Capitalism" which everyone knows is a FAILED System, after TRILLIONS of our money is transferred to the filthy rich as was accomplished with the recent Bozo Trump / Republican "Corporate Welfare Scheme" which unlawfully gave even MORE of our money to Wall Street and Greed Mongers and extracted MORE money from American's pockets, believe it our not, here's where most of that cash ends Up, in foreign accounts despite what Bozo Trump falsely claimed his new tax law would accomplish:
"Top U.S. companies stash over a trillion dollars in offshore tax havens"
http://www.shfwire.com/top-u-s-companie … ax-havens/
And "Mutt" McConnell, Bozo Trump and the rest of the Russian Republicans in congress have the nerve to declare the FALSEHOOD that we can't afford Health-Care for ALL or Non-Tuition College for students or CLEAN-Up and salvage our planet which is now on Life-Support ???? If we forced greedy cash rich corporations to bring our money home instead of using it to enrich foreigners, there would be more than enough to institute ALL of these vital necessities:
Look at history. Every single brutal dictatorship and economic failure depicted itself as establishing Democratic Socialism. It's a running joke that if a country has the word Democratic in it, it isn't.
For example: the Democratic Republic of North Korea, the Democratic, or Democratic Kampuchea (under the crazed Pol Pot), and the list goes on.
Just because you pair "Democratic" with "Socialism" does not mean that you get a great new deal. Socialism has failed everywhere, and if the answer is that true socialism has never been implemented, this should be a warning that it does not work in the real world.
Of all economic and social theories, communism and its lite cousin socialism have brought the greatest misery to the world. Witness the atrocities of the Cambodian Genocide, the famines and mass murders of the Maoist Revolution, and the Stalinist massacres and repression (that too in a country that called itself Socialist - not Communist - and pretended to be democratic.)
Each of these movements and revolutions started out with great ideals. Let us redistribute land, wealth etc and they ended up with any perceived threats and intellectuals in jail or dead.
Even now we see the growth of cultural marxism in colleges and among big corporations who do not allow dissent and who de-platform users whose views do not align with theirs. It is a slippery slope which has been the ruin of many countries and societies before.
Fundamentally socialism does not work because it is against human nature and because it it discourages work and achievement. It has the lofty goal of providing wealth redistribution and guaranteed minimum income, but it does so on the backs of the producers and encourages the lazy. And because it does not work organically it must be imposed by force.
Labeling this as Democratic Socialism is a great branding trick, and I am sure that most who propose it believe in what they are pushing. But they would do well to study history and economics. Because regardless of the label it all ends in the same way: bread lines and gulags.
I don't know if all of this amounts to a fear of "encroaching Socialism" or a fervent desire to maintain crony Capitalism.
I really wonder if even the Conservatives know their preference?
What is your solution to crony capitalism? Let’s not throw away the baby with the bath water.
That is easy, Jack, just cut off the money just in the way you want to do with the poor and downtrodden....
This vaunted Capitalist system of yours is so corrupt, I am willing to chance throwing out the baby to get rid of the rancid bath water.
Both socialism and crony capitalism are oppressive. I'm putting my faith in neither.
Prof, regardless of what conservatives always say, America has never been a Socialist Economy. But, Crony Capitalism is quite real and in your face.
Yes, but you have to weigh the plus and minus, the cost benefit analysis.
Without capitalism, and even with crony capitalism, we have achieved the highest wealth and standard of living in all of history. Who else can make that claim?
What stats do you have to back up that claim? Because when 40 million people, as of 2017, in the United States currently live in poverty, I don't agree with your assessment.
Valeant, whose fault is it that the 40 million are impoverished? While there are some who are unable to help themselves due to physical, emotional, intellectual, & psychological challenges, many poor people in America...…..WANT to be that way or act in ways that are irresponsible. They elect negative thoughts & actions instead of positive, proactive thoughts & actions.
Poor people in America do things that are divergently different from the middle & upper classes:
(1) They act w/o ramifications of their actions upon the future. They don't think, just act.
(2) They see their children as breadwinners & expect to be supported by them.
(3) They have far more children than they can afford. Large/very large families are typically poor to impoverished as opposed to middle & upper class families who have small families.
(4) They practice immediate gratification(see#1). They don't think ahead, only are concerned w/immediate pleasures.
(5)They are suspicious of any type of achievement, especially educational & socioeconomic achievements which they feel are not within their purview in addition to being a waste of time. They value street smarts over schooling.
(6) They view money & wealth as evil & poverty as ennobling.
You seem to have a textbook definition of what it means to be poor and its ALL their fault, really?
It reflects temerity on your part to so easily put so much of our population in your convenient little boxed categories.
I grew up impoverished in a single parent household, lived in a trailer park even at times. None of what you said was remotely true.
The reality is that today salaries and wages do not support a living wage. Wages have not kept up with the costs of living.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/20 … r-decades/
From that article: After adjusting for inflation, however, today’s average hourly wage has just about the same purchasing power it did in 1978. What wage gains there have been have mostly flowed to the highest-paid tier of workers. That's the issue. Wealth inequality is growing out of hand because low-wage workers are being exploited.
Yup, far from perfect.
But this system allows upward mobility, based on ability, effort, etc. you might be born dirt poor, but you can become filthy rich... has happened to millions of Americans.
In general the MAJORITY of Americans get to live decent lives and are well off.
Nothing has worked better. The further along we march towards socialism, and our nation has been marching along in that direction for many decades now, the more that number of poor swells, and the more elitist the 'ruling class' becomes.
I see you don't use the public highways or the public schools, Ken. Do you refuse use either because they are socialistic programs? Anyone in your family collect SS? Do tell! Inquiring minds and all that $#it.
Answer if you're not frightened to.....
Randy, public highways and public schools have nothing to do with socialism. Socialism deals with the government controlling the means of production. Public highway, public schools as well as SS are products of a healthy tax base being provided by capitalism. This is where individuals control means of production and are able to succeed as far as they desire without government interference.
An acquaintance told me they were now on the government dole because they retired. When I told him, no, not true, the government owed him that money, it was all his, no one else has contributed to his fund, the government had just been using his money and was now returning some of it to him, he gave me a look like a deer in the headlights. Issues with social security aren't quite that simple but that it is and always has been money he earned is still the truth.
When I-75 came through our farm in the early 60's, we had no choice but to allow the highway to take our land.
So, where they get the name, "Social" Security, Mike? Are you as sure about your post as you were when you claimed Mexicans weren't Native Americans?
Randy, thank you for putting your ignorance of the Aztec empire and the history of Mexico for all to see. It speaks volumes. I must admit it has gone from humorous to just plain sad.
I also appreciate how you have no concept of socialism or the meaning of "means of production." You also obviously have no idea of the legal concept of the Eminent Domain. It has nothing to do with socialism.
Where do they get the name Social security? This is so obtuse on so many levels I can't even respond. Anything I write you would not understand.
Have a good day Randy.
Right Mike, I am thoroughly embarrassed for you by your apparent ignoring of basic facts.
Have a nice day yourself with your amazing ability to spread disinformation like your idol and role model little Donnie!
But since I'm so obtuse, favor me and give an explanation of the name, Social Security. This ought to be good!
Absolutely true. Honest perspective helps us think through the problems we face. Complaints in America about low wages come from people comparing themselves to this country's rich, not from comparing themselves to those in socialist countries. Every country has always had its rich and its poor. Reasons vary. This country does offer opportunity but too many have come to think they should be given what they want rather than have to innovate and work towards success so they can be in a position to offer other people opportunity. People who stop listening to popular culture and spend their time focusing on what it takes to succeed in any area they see successes that are sometimes far beyond what they expected.
The elephant in the room. The low wages at the bottom for the past few decades is directly related to the illegal immigration migrants into our country.
The Democrats wants more of this to continue...along with the globalist, the businesses that want to hire them, and the potential votes...
Build the wall and stop illegal immigration and wages will automatically rise.
Maybe you can try to convince us that illegal immigrants shot Kennedy too.
I'll back this theory instead:
The Advent Of The World’s Dumbest Idea
The fact is that in the 1980s and beyond, public companies began embracing a very different idea as to the purpose of a firm: the idea that the sole purpose of a corporation is to maximize shareholder value. Then, as executives were compensated massively with stock options to sharpen their focus on increasing shareholder value at the expense of everything else, and activist hedge funds began reinforcing the focus with corporate raids on firms that didn’t buy into the doctrine, public companies began to focus totally on maximizing shareholder as reflected in current the stock price.
Previously, firms had sought to balance the needs of all the stakeholders—customers, employees, shareholders and the community. Workers were valued both as contributors to the gains that had already been made and as the creators of future growth. But once shareholder value thinking took over, workers came to be seen as expendable commodities, whose training for the future and career development were simply not their problem. No responsibility was felt to those employees who had helped create the wealth of the company. Instead, corporate raiders, who had played no role in creating that wealth, extracted much of the gains, which they then used to conduct more raids.
"Fifty years ago,” writer Lynn Stout, the late distinguished professor of corporate and business law at Cornell Law School, in her book, The Shareholder Value Myth, wrote, “if you had asked the directors or CEO of a large public company what the company's purpose was, you might have been told the corporation had many purposes: to provide equity investors with solid returns, but also to build great products, to provide decent livelihoods for employees, and to contribute to the community and nation. The concept was to focus on long-term performance, not maximizing short-term profits."
"All this changed in the 1980s. Economists began arguing, confidently, if incorrectly, that shareholders 'own' corporations and that stock price always captures a firm's true economic value. Thus shareholders should have more power over corporate boards, and executive pay should be tied to shareholder returns. These academic arguments were embraced by activist investors seeking to buy shares, pump up price, and sell for a quick profit. They also appealed to CEOs hoping to enrich themselves by boosting share price by any means possible (including, at Enron, outright fraud). The result is today's world, where 'shareholder value' is king."
Containing wages and benefits became key elements of corporate strategy of most public companies, while shareholders and executives were rewarded beyond their wildest dreams. But there was a cost: stagnant wages through downsizing and layoffs, and widening income inequality.
Yes, this is the problem. But is the solution to take more from the wealthy because they're not paying their workers as much as they should be paying them? Not just take more from them, but tax them at higher rates. I'm familiar with the 70% tax rate, but if that's imposed today, in what is now a thoroughly globalized economy, won't that force many of the wealthy, and employers with them, to other countries?
I submit to you that this problem of greed is a human problem rather than a political one. We were able to put a cap on it for a while in the States, but the question is why isn't it working anymore? Have people become greedier, or are they simply expressing more readily what's been in them all along?
Wondering what we are focusing on here as well as the United States fails to make the top five in terms of GDP per capita, the quality of life index, or the human development index.
https://statisticstimes.com/economy/cou … capita.php
https://www.usnews.com/news/best-countr … e-rankings
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c … ment_Index
But over the last 50 years the gravy train has run dry, the wealth is not spread the way it once was and there are serious consideration as to the basic viability of the current system in a way not seen in the past.
People are demanding a more even spread of economic opportunity and it can begin by not paying our hard tax dollars to butter the bread of millionaires and billionaires. When the wealth was more evenly distributed in the past, the circumstances that you spoke of was excused, but with the current pinch in all quarters of today's economy, no one is in that mood today.
"Prof, regardless of what conservatives always say, America has never been a Socialist Economy. But, Crony Capitalism is quite real and in your face."
Yes, you're right. However, you error is suggesting that socialism, even socialism with democratic in front of it, is a solution.
Provide a solution that doesn't involve: Stealing and coercion.
Assuming what you say is true, what is your solution? If any?
Given the current state of affairs, if I have to choose, I will take crony capitalism over democratic socialism any day of the week.
I rather have higher standard of living for most instead of equal but poor.
jackclee, I'm not suggesting that there IS a political solution. If there's a solution, those that have wealth must choose to use it differently than they're using it now. This is, as you and others have pointed out, an historical problem. It's as old as mankind. Look at scripture.
Crony capitalism DOES, arguably, lead to lower wages for many. And companies that could pay more in wages, but don't, are acting wrongly. The worker deserves his/her wage.
My point for credence is simply that an acceptable political solution can't involve theft or coercion. That's all.
I agree with you on that point...
It always bother me that some are so vindictive that they will bite the hand that feeds them...
When you punish the wealthy, you hurt the very people at the bottom.
This is not a theory. We have historical evidence.
In the 1990s, we had simething called a luxury tax. The idea was to tax people who buy yachts...guess what, those people stop buying American made yachts, and the industry suffered. The rich just went overseas and bought there.
The only political solution I have is to simply encourage the wealthy to reconsider what they're doing - that can come from American political leaders.
I actually have a proposal to fix crony capitalism...
Here is my new article -
Let me know what you think...
Jack, here is my solution, people who don't like the wealthy should work hard to become wealthy. I can tell you, paying wages is very different when you are responsible for paying the wages. Most people who complain have no idea what it's like to pay overhead, deal with competition and everything else involved with owning a business. They just point and complain. It's like complaining about a professional athlete's performance. You can point and complain but you'll never know what it's like on the field.
Is that really a solution or wishful thinking?
I wish all democrats would just use their brain for a change...
Does that count as a solution to our problems?
Yeah, considering the Optimal Tax Rate Theory that Ocasio-Cortez promotes was developed through research by two economists from MIT and UC Berkeley, I think there was some brain power there. Remind me again how those schools compare to CCNY and Polytechnic of NY?
Not really, because those on the right possess no brain to use.
But Prof, conservatives will never go for a solution with no coercion or theft. That's how many became wealthy and stay that way for generations. Theft from the workers and citizens is how so many billionaires are formed.
Let me try to sway you to particular persuasion point Cred. I think this current "socialism" controversy is a misdirection.
I think, as you pondered, that it is all about maintaining the developed system of, as you call it, crony capitalism. Our capitalistic system has become less of what can you do and more of who do you know.
That isn't new. It has always been that way, but I think, with the exponential explosion, (in recent times), of the ability for money to make money, vs. effort to make money, the concept that is defined as crony capitalism has become vital to the process.
I think that is why we see such fantastical numbers relating to today's wealth inequality.
There has always been wealth inequality, and I think there always will be, but with the numbers of today - billions vs. millions, I think these new wealth multipliers make the concept of "crony capitalism" more of a factor than ever before in our history.
Don't be misled by the "socialism" proclamations - from either side, it is the "connections," the concept that defines crony capitalism that is the driving force.
And that too is not new. Smart people throughout history have spoken of the benefits of networking, (one example would be groups like the college Skull & Bones type fraternities of the Bush's times, or the Masonic groups of the Founder's times), but that has developed more and more into the "connections" benefits.
Why else would a lobbyist be worth millions a year just for being able to put businessman A in touch with politician B?
I can always count on you to always be ready to enter the "Lion's Den", I am seeing RED on this one and no pun intended.
"Our capitalistic system has become less of what can you do and more of who do you know."
Which sets the stage for a series of well connected insiders with a unfair leg up over everyone else. Why is all this glad handing taking place using my tax money?
Crony Capitalism has been growing over the last few years? The extent has exacerbated by the growing inequality across society, promoted by the wealthy few and corporations against the commoner. People are picking up on it, and Warren and Sanders are attempting to address this broad area of discontent, and it has legs.
Capitalism by its definition means that a certain amount wealth inequity is expected, but over the last 3 to 4 decades, it has reached the point where the "system" itself is in danger of being undone in my opinion.
Maybe, it is high time that we break some of those "connections" up. Who are my representatives in Congress that are being bribed and cajoled into giving these fat cats so much of my money while being flinty and castigating the poor as deserving their lot in life?
Can you not see the glaring hypocrisy? The misdirection of the public toward nitpicking every social program and blaming the poor while allowing these money changers to rape the treasury. All while Conservatives, beating up on the little guy, conveniently look the other way?
In principle, networking is a splendid concept, but using the public's money to play patty-cake, between the rich and affluent individuals and corporate entities is no longer amusing. These guys are titans of a capitalist society, can they not succeed without billions of dollars of tax payer subsidies, endless whining about the taxes that most avoid paying, the reality of their outsourcing and technology based displacement of the labor force, and their insidious lobbying and grandstanding in Washington to see that any legislation coming out for DC is to their selfish advantage, and damn the concept of "free markets' which is just used by them for public consumption.
It all has to go, even it means a major overhaul of the system. I cannot ethically accept never seeming to have any money for anything and anyone with the exception of bloated military establishment and those greedy J.P. Morgan types that continue to suckle from the public teat, while there are far more needy that need to be there.
I don't buy into any of this job creator crap, either. These sort have been taking the general public for a ride for a long time, it is just that now we are all at a critical juncture, and a stark change to business as usual must be now advocated by any politician that is serious about obtaining my vote, no more Mr. Nice Guy.
But who says the system is fair, huh?
However, I cannot acquiesce in the face of so many inequities and not do something politically to put a stop to it.
I would suggest what we need in this country is sports equality. Why should only the best and most talented get the huge contracts? It isn't fair that they were born with athletic gifts I don't have and never will. Why can't someone, such as myself play, professional sports? It's not my fault I wasn't born with any athletic talent. I can play sports, just not as good as others. I think in a fair society, I would be able to be a professional athlete. I would consider it professional sports equality. I must say, the income gap between those who can play professional sports and those who can't has grown quite a bit. It's not fair.
I can't sing or act or dance but why should that keep me from working in the entertainment business? I think we need entertainment business equality. The gap between those who are given huge amounts of money to make crappy movies and those who could make crappy movies with no talent is too much. We need entertainment industry equality.
Do you get my point?
Under the capitalistic system people with athletic talent can make millions a year because they are gifted athletes. It's not fair they have this talent while so many others don't, but that's life.
No everybody can sing or dance or act, and it's okay they get paid millions a year because that is what they earn in their industry. It's not fair so many people don't have such talent, but that's okay, they should be free to earn as much as they can in their industry.
So, what kind of athletes would you have if everyone was only able to make a certain amount of money no matter what because that would be fair? What movies would happen if people could only make a certain amount of money because that is what's fair?
Why should gifted, talented people who work very hard only be able to make a certain amount of money because it's fair?
It's the same in every industry.
The capitalistic system isn't fair, but it has provided incentive to produce the best athletes, scientists, actors, writer and more. It provides a way for the best to become the best.
That's why all innovations that have moved mankind forward has occurred in a capitalistic system. Everything from the radio to television, space travel, Apple computers, Microsoft, the internet etc., etc., etc., have occurred because a system was in place for people to become the best they could be in their chosen profession.
You miss the point, Mike
But, in all that why are my tax dollars subsidizing millionaires and billionaires and their corporations, that has nothing to do with having talent or the lack thereof?
I think the reality is more about connections and privilege over the claim that these people you refer to are just BETTER and that I should be more than happy to just give them more of my tax money for free?
You know what I speak of when we talk about extremes of wealth in fewer hands Conservatives like to write it off, but in near future these very issues will bite you all.
The extreme wealth you spoke of has been around since the beginning of the industrial revolution...you have the Rockerfeller, the Kennedy, the Morgan, the Vanderbuilt, and Ford and du Pont... they have done a lot of good with their fortunes, such as donations to museums and libraries and foundations...
Then, let them stick with charitable efforts and keep their grubby hands out of the treasury, remove their lobbyists from bribing our politicians to ignore the will of the vast majority of their constituents to just do their bidding.
Money TALKS. If one wants money, one has to work smart & strategize. Complaining about lack of wealth is totally pointless. Wanting socialism is equally pointless. America is a capitalistic system built on enterprise. Don't like the system- LEAVE...……...pure & simple. America isn't about to be a socialistic country no matter how hard the current Democrats are working towards it!
Patriots do not say "if you don't like the system, leave." We have the right and the duty to fight for change in a dysfunctional system.
All of that is well and good, but if I can't help the poor in principle according to you, I am certainly not going to subsidize millionaires and billionaires with my tax dollars.
We are not going anywhere on the contrary we are going to put more of a spotlight on this topic in this election cycle then ever before, so maybe you rightwing types can exit to Greenland instead, if you have problems with this venture.
America will NEVER be a LEFTIST country, Credence2. Get used to it. Americans are centrists. Americans don't like Leftists!!!!
Do you want to subsidize billionaires and millionaires with your tax dollars? Where is all the Social Darwinism, survival of the fittest stuff, when it comes to wealthy raiding the treasury, that you so quickly and easily apply to the poor?
But forces are going to move this society in the CORRECT direction, and you going to see it coming. I will see that we bring the Rightwinger to heel.
Your work will be of NO FRUITION...……..it is merely utopian fantasy.
I am all for drastically cutting taxes on the middle classes. My concern is primarily for the middle classes which are slowly being socioeconomically decimated by taxes for inane social & welfare programs. I am for drastically reducing government sponsored programs. Let each DO for himself/herself!
ALL PROGRAMS, does that mean weaning the wealthy and the corporations away from the Goverment teat as well?
You do that and cut into profligate military spending, maybe the middle class can get a tax cut without having to disturb your precious aristocracy class.
The solution is term limits for Congress.
I am not in disagreement with that solution. I will try to check out your article at my earliest opportunity, but don't be disappointed as I am a strong advocate for the political left, and mince no bones about that.
Credence, I just published a new hub and hope you will read it and give me your reaction...
Here is the article -
Credence 2, your tax dollars are subsidizing millionaires and billionaires with talent. It's an investment. Taxpayers build a stadium. Horrible!...but is it? Think about it as an investment in increasing taxes. The newer stadium will hire people to build it and staff it, they pay taxes, the professional athletes who play there will pay taxes, the tickets sold there will involve paying taxes, the refreshments sold there will involve paying taxes, the items sold there will involve the payment of taxes, the advertising done there will involve the payment of taxes. Sure, taxpayer money is used to pay for a stadium, but the tax revenue received many years on the back end more than pays for it. So, give a billionaire a tax break and they will employ more people and generate more tax revenue. They will compete to try and make the best possible product. Athletes have a talent for athletics, wealthy business people have a talent for making money. It's comes down to being able to earn the most with the talents you have been given.
Excerpt from infopedia
I contract with companies to perform services, there are not to be any giveaways.
I am not subsidizing wealthy people, it's robbery and graft and part of the dirty side of politics the Right has always been reluctant to acknowledge.
I don't care about stadiums, Taxpayer money can be used to build a stadium if that use of so large a proposed sum can be supported in a vote. Give a billionaire a tax break and they will buy more Krugerands, VanGogh's etc.
I have read an article regarding one of the Koch Brother's who say that in principle, they are opposed to corporate welfare as an intervention in the free market and not really a tenet of conservatism. However, while Koch was saying this he accepted 80 million dollars of corporate welfare giveaways and subsidies, recently. Asked why he had accepted the money when he said it was contrary to his principles, he said, "the company had to accept the money if for no other reason except to maintain its competitive advantage".
This is more likely to be the truth behind this "corporate welfare" stuff. If this means ever more virulent class warfare to attack this, I say let it come. I will select the candidates with the courage to bring it out into the open, regardless of which side of the isle promotes it.
Subsidies considered excessive, unwarranted, wasteful, unfair, inefficient, or bought by lobbying are often called corporate welfare. The label of corporate welfare is often used to decry projects advertised as benefiting the general welfare that spend a disproportionate amount of funds on large corporations, and often in uncompetitive, or anti-competitive ways. For instance, in the United States, agricultural subsidies are usually portrayed as helping independent farmers stay afloat. However, the majority of income gained from commodity support programs actually goes to large agribusiness corporations such as Archer Daniels Midland, as they own a considerably larger percentage of production.
Alan Peters and Peter Fisher, Associate Professors at the University of Iowa, have estimated that state and local governments provide $40–50 billion annually in economic development incentives, which critics characterize as corporate welfare.
Some economists consider the 2008 bank bailouts in the United States to be corporate welfare. U.S. politicians have also contended that zero-interest loans from the Federal Reserve System to financial institutions during the global financial crisis were a hidden, backdoor form of corporate welfare. The term gained increased prominence in 2018 when Senator Bernie Sanders introduced a bill, singling out Amazon and Walmart in particular, to require a company with 500 or more employees to pay the full cost of welfare benefits received by its workers.
Policy analysis conducted by the Cato Institute, an American libertarian think tank, argued that United States fiscal policy allocated approximately US$92 billion in the 2006 federal budget toward programs that the authors considered to be corporate welfare. Subsequent analysis by the institute estimated that number to be US$100 billion in the 2012 federal budget.
Daniel D. Huff, professor emeritus of social work at Boise State University, published a comprehensive analysis of corporate welfare in 1993. Huff reasoned that a very conservative estimate of corporate welfare expenditures in the United States would have been at least US$170 billion in 1990. Huff compared this number with social welfare:
In 1990 the federal government spent 4.7 billion dollars on all forms of international aid. Pollution control programs received 4.8 billion dollars of federal assistance while both secondary and elementary education were allotted only 8.4 billion dollars. More to the point, while more than 170 billion dollars is expended on assorted varieties of corporate welfare the federal government spends 11 billion dollars on Aid for Dependent Children. The most expensive means tested welfare program, Medicaid, costs the federal government 30 billion dollars a year or about half of the amount corporations receive each year through assorted tax breaks. S.S.I., the federal program for the disabled, receives 13 billion dollars while American businesses are given 17 billion in direct federal aid.
Huff argued that deliberate obfuscation was a complicating factor.[
THE GOVERNMENT OWES...………..US...…………….IT IS A RIGHT...EAT THE RICH……….
The fact that you truly believe money is the primary motivation for an athlete to become the best makes me believe you didn't play an organized sport. I would argue that to be remembered as a great is of more value, the fame of it all.
And innovation occurred long before huge salaries as we showed earlier when Apple and Microsoft were founded under a 70% tax rate. One does not cease the other from existing.
"you didn't play an organized sport"...you would be wrong. My high school athletics was not impressive but nothing that causes me shame. If professional athletes weren't worried about money there wouldn't be player's unions. Do you really believe that money was not a motivation for innovation through the years? Seriously? That has been the motivation since before the industrial revolution. Eli Whitney wasn't motivated to invent the cotton gin because he loved cotton.
Of course people worry about money. But I doubt it's the main motivator.
Look at it from the flip side. If the tax rate is high, entrepreneurs need to innovate to become more efficient and widen their profits. Can you deny that a higher tax rate could also be a motivator to innovation?
Wrong on all count. A higher tax is a disincentive.
Only to a true socialist do they think the govenment knows best on how to spend our money.
When you want less of something you tax it?
It is an economic truth.
The left in this country never undertand why people are incentivized when they are given their small piece of land, or house or private ownership.
'When you want less of something you tax it?'
What is wanted is a decrease in the wealth gap in this country and an incentive to raise wages for the middle class.
What policies do you propose to solve this issue? Because I'm not sure I'm hearing any as the wealthy continue to hoard all the wealth while these policies worked for our country in the past. You seem to completely disregard historical precedent where those higher tax rates actually worked to achieve a better distribution of wealth within the United States.
My solution is outlined in my new hub...
I wrote this in particular as a response to the latest call for socialism...
"distribution of wealth" Wealth is not distributed, it is earned, people achieve it by doing something that provides them wealth. Communists and socialists who don't have the skills or abilities to compete in the free market want distribution of wealth so they don't have to work as hard as the wealthy. That is true historical precedent.
What we want is decent wages as I outlined up above instead of corporations equating massive giveaways to their executives in the form of stock options as an increase in shareholder value as the main basis for a company's value.
If you equate paying wages that keep pace with inflation to all employees instead of just enriching the few at the top tier with socialism, then I doubt your idea of capitalism is sustainable.
True Val, unregulated capitalism has gotten us to where we are now with a few people having the majority of wealth and controlling politicians so it will only stay the same or become even worse.
"Decent wage". "Fair wage". "Equal pay for different jobs".
Why is it that no one will give actual numbers rather than nebulous terms that mean, at the end of it all, "more than the job is worth"?
40 million living in poverty, 95 million (30% of the US population) earning a wage less than twice that of the poverty figure for family size. A google search can easily provide you the poverty line figures.
I'll tell you what I tell my relatives. If you don't like your wage start a business and pay yourself. Cut out the middleman. Trust me, everyone has a different attitude on wages when they're responsible for paying them. Sure would like to see your source so I could see how the information was collected.
THANK YOU, Mike! See my response to Valeant re: poverty. Why do some people HATE THE TRUTH!
Brilliant Mike! Just wish you could teach this wisdom to the entire world...I mean other's of your mindset of course.
AMEN, Mike. It is time to teach some the theory of supply & demand. It is also time to teach that levels of pay is equal to levels of skill &/or education. Why is that beyond some people's comprehension level?!
I believe it is because people would rather choose to be jealous of what others have rather than work hard to get what they want. It's easier to point to a billionaire and be jealous of what they have rather than focus on one's self and work hard to get what they want. It is a constant quest to always be a victim that is very destructive to such people.
Reminds me of when I got a new car and my cousin's husband didn't understand why I got a new car and he couldn't afford one. This is a man who teaches a college, liberal arts, so it sort of a college. I told him I worked for it and if he can't afford one it's not my problem. Of course then it wasn't HIM that created a situation where he couldn't afford a new car. It wasn't that he owned more house than he or I could afford and accrued more debt that kept him from getting a new car, it was the unfair economic system in the United States that kept him from having a new car. So, that is how I see it.
I'll wager your cousin was a democrat, eh Mike?
Because those 150,000,000 million are being paid for not producing what they need or want? While the 400 most definitely are?
How about nearly ALL of us are greedy for what we don't have.
Another thought about it...would be interesting to see where those 400 started in the race.
And I disagree with your assumption. When my family was living in poverty, both of my parents were hard working veterans. The jobs they had just didn't offer great wages.
Did they want to IMPROVE themselves through seeking promotions or improving their educational status or were they passive & accepted their poverty as a normative lifestyle?
Darn Grace, you really are reaching for it now....are you speaking as a privileged child, or one of us public schooled lower class students?
My parents who were born impoverished from VERY LARGE families didn't depend upon handouts. They made THEIR OWN way & become solidly middle class through education & smart work. POOR people can improve themselves w/o handouts if they WANT TO...…….
As single parents, I'm not sure either would have climbed out of poverty without help. I've seen firsthand what a little boost can do for people on multiple occasions. While I get it that you just hope the poor and the sick go ahead and die off, I'm alright with my hard earned tax dollars going to give them that boost. I'm aware of the boosts I got and want to pay them forward.
I don't want anyone to die but poor people can help/improve themselves w/o handouts. What happened to the concept of doing for self? The government isn't people's parents. My parents who came from IMPOVERISHED backgrounds taught me this. My Caribbean father's saying is to use initiative, don't be LAZY...………..
As for the first 2 premises, I question that. You have to be a dupe for the aristocracy here to believe 400 people are more deserving that 150 million, pure rightwing-think...
No kidding! Where does the right get this stuff? Probably Fox or Limbaugh...
There is a profound lack of understanding of the interrelatedness of, and dependence upon, the individual parts of a complex system that enabled those 400 people to accumulate their wealth. Without that understanding, it is useless to have a conversation about income inequality.
In other words, I believe wilderness is representative of those who are hopelessly unaware that those 400 people could not be wealthy without the whole of the system within which they operate. And, if the divide continues to grow, the entire system will fail to the detriment of all, including those 400 he seems to revere as worthy of their ridiculously outsized fortunes.
Yes, those 400 need to realize that we all are working within and cooperating within a system that allowed them to accumulate so much wealth. The idea of most of them beginning in a coal mine is nonsense. If the 400 get too greedy they may find that the 150 million may have a problem with the very system that the 400 have done so well with if it continues to be perceived that the deck is structurally set against them.
I agree with you most wholeheartedly.
The thing we don't give much consideration to is that the consumer is in control in a capitalistic system. We don't need professional athletes, actors, dancers, cable TV..., but Americans give them money so they can be entertained. What if, corporately, Americans who want more money stopped giving it to those people and used it to pay their debts or...? There would be a new kind of revolution in this country!
Focus Cred. You should be angry at specifics and not generalities.
Networking, connections, and wealth inequality will always be a part of human life. Accept it.
Most of the "advantages" you are upset about are not using "your" tax dollars. I think many of the corporate-type subsidies that would be using tax dollars are bad deals for average taxpayers, but I also think many are, (or at least were), beneficial to the average taxpayer because of the impact on our economy.
Just as a general example, in the area of global competition, imagine the handicap our private corporations had/have trying to compete against China's example of government supported industries, (steel comes to mind). Or, our government's subsidy of beneficial new industries that are so costly to incubate that private corporations won't take the risk? Green industries and solar panel development come to mind.
My point being that the basic concept of corporate subsidies isn't automatically bad. It has instances, (many?), of terrible abuse, but it also has instances, (few?), of substantial benefit.
Let me qualify that by directing that thought at primarily tangible production industries, not financial industries.
If you don't "buy into any of this job creator crap" then where do you think new jobs will come from? Do you support the New Green Deal's concept of a government job bank? Talk about using tax dollars, whew!
The solutions we need may require more than a scalpel to fix, but I think a butcher knife would be better than a sledgehammer.
I am focused, GA, I am vexed at specifics as well as generalities.
You are dancing around my point, I said that I am not savvy on so blatantly giving so much of my tax money in subsidies, and outright giveaways to the wealthiest and the corporate establishment, nobody said anything about income inequity. Be we are more a tune to it lately, as the difference becomes so vast, that we are not going to acquiesce in it as you are suggesting that I do. I am not interested in sledgehammers, but a jackhammer, to bring attention to the issue if only to the modify and reduce to practice even if it is not practical to eliminate it in its entirety.
I signed up today to join Elizabeth Warren campaign and her objective of bringing the plutocrat to heel... I have never felt better or more self assured.
Is not the job creator stuff used by the Right as an excuse to give them a free lunch at my expense, every time. That does not work for me.
This smoosing and camaraderie among these people has the underlying pinnings of the topic we talk about as to why people of color do not support the GOP in large numbers. Its looking in the store glass window and seeing people using privilege and advantage to enrich themselves while excluding others. These people, for the most part never had boots to pull up, but Gucci shoes to slip on. That is NEVER going to work for me, GA. And like I told another poster, if this means exacerbated class warfare, then I say, let it come.
I am not talking about production where capitalism is straight forward, hire employees, sell products, balance sheets, income statements, profits and losses. I am talking about subsidies that are not warranted, see the post to Mike earlier on, per definition of Infopedia (corporate welfare)
When I look at the sheer scale of the practice (corporate welfare), while Conservatives bitch, pi$$ and moan about any and all entitlement programs, it turns my blue heart just that much more blue.
Isn't providing any Government subsidy to business, regardless of competition with China or otherwise "Socialism"? Where is all the "free market" talk now?
By the way, it is more than just subsidies, it constitutes graft and giveaways. The statement from the Koch Brothers regarding these subsidies speak volume, see my comment to Mike earlier in the thread.
I may have missed your point Cred, but I did not mean to dance around it, and I certainly didn't mean to say we should acquiesce to it.
My point about focusing was to say we should address specifics rather than generalities.
For instance, agroindustry subsidies; I understand the intent was to help farmers survive. Individual and family farmers, not mega-farm operations like Archer Danials. I can support the original intent, but not the current outcome of the program as written.
I think the focus should be on how the program became one that would benefit Archer Danials when its original purpose was to support the smaller farm operators? I think the answer to that would be unscrupulous politicians. That should be the focus.
Another example might be our steel industry and China. As I understand, the root of the problem was China subsidizing their steel production to the point that it was being exported at or below production costs. Would we have lost our steel industry without government intervention? Without tariffs, I think we would have. (yes, I am aware that this particular industry benefitted from being forced to innovate and improve efficiency due to the Chinese steel pricing)
Maybe I am wrong about both examples. I haven't studied them and am speaking from general knowledge, but if I am not, wouldn't that suggest a need to look at specific programs rather than the general concept?
I am not defending the outcomes we are seeing and discussing, (like that Koch example), but I am defending the reality that there are instances that can be supported as being in our nation's best interest.
Good for you and your Warren sign-up. Did they give you a sticker? ;-)
"For instance, agroindustry subsidies; I understand the intent was to help farmers survive. Individual and family farmers, not mega-farm operations like Archer Danials. I can support the original intent, but not the current outcome of the program as written."
If I'm off topic, I apologize, but why? Why do you support subsidizing a business, whether mom and pop or a mega-corporation, that cannot make a profit? Why is the country responsible for supplying the profit part of the balance sheet if the owner cannot do it?
I can understand (if I don't always agree) with subsidizing a new industry that is considered good for the country (electric car comes to mind) but farming is a well established industry and needs no help. Individual farmers may well need it, but why is it the role of government to provide that support when others will produce the same goods without needing an infusion of tax money?
"Why" is a fair question Wilderness. If I knew more about the agro subsidies I would try to answer. But I don't so I won't.
I can enlighten you on farmers who need subsidizing and those who do not. They are two different animals, GA. It also depends on the particular crop being produced and how much it's backed by lobbyists. Like anything else being produced here...
Thanks Randy. I do have some vague idea of hearing about getting paid not to plant a particular crop, and other things like that, (government cheese?), but that little bit of knowledge would only get me into deeper trouble if I tried to talk about it without looking around a bit first.
I'm pleased you're prevented from having a discussion because you admit you know less about the subject than is required. I wish others would do the same and not opine when it's not needed.
Trump's tariffs have caused much trouble with the small farmers, as well as, the large corporate agribusinesses.
I know, I'm just not any fun. I have painted enough bullseyes on my forehead, I try to learn from my mistakes.
GA, it is just that there are too many examples of abuse and hijack of public money, per your Archer Daniels example. The abusive aspect appears to be the underlying principle as to how this all works rather than a mere anomaly. I am reminded of the Haliberton fiasco a few years ago.
As for the China example, I understand, but the transfer of tax dollars from what I have able to glean, is too often not necessarily for so noble of a purpose.
With the protest on Wall Street thing going on not too long ago among other things, the political winds have shifted. These concerns are going be more critically evaluated in the future. There is ever more pressure and visibility to the transfer of tax money to crony capitalists rather than for purposes like the bank bailouts in 2008-09. I think that it sucked, and I don't like handing wealthy people more of my money . But from what I understood, the bailout prevented a recession far worse than we actually experienced. So, I see the direction you are going.
I am nervous about the sticker the Warren team is to send. This is Florida and there is a component of adamant Rightwinger here. Explicit display of progressive icons on your POV could get you "keyed" at a minimum or worse. Oddly enough, I never had these kinds of concerns in either Colorado or Hawaii, I wondered why?
"There is ever more pressure and visibility to the transfer of tax money to crony capitalists rather than for purposes like the bank bailouts in 2008-09"
Can you explain better what you mean by this? I am unaware of any "crony capitalists" getting free money from the government - can you give some examples or a more detailed description?
This list is from 2017 and may need to be updated but it's a start:
https://www.cheatsheet.com/money-career … ents.html/
"According to The Cato Institute, corporate welfare handouts shot all the way up to $92 billion as of 2002."
"More recently, subsidy tracking group Good Jobs First released a 2014 report detailing where exactly taxpayer dollars are being funneled, and which states are the most likely to divvy up handouts."
Nothing else I saw indicates 2017, and the second quote does not seem to be a federal subsidy to coroporations at all, but to states.
In any case, the long list that comes next gives no specifics at all. It is my assumption that the vast majority of these "subsidies" are tax breaks for performing specific actions to encourage companies to do what the government wants them to do; a quid-pro-quo in other words without any real "subsidy". Not a simple check to do with as they wish.
We gave some "subsidies" during the recession, which often turned out to be loans not subsidies, and have been paid back (I believe many have not as well). So when I see that corporations all over the country are getting "subsidies", I have to take it with a grain of salt.
The 2017 reference was the date the article was published and yes, some of these cases are referring to government subsidies at the state level (Wisconsinites know far too well about those with the gargantuan nightmare surrounding Walker's Foxconn arrangement). A little more on Nike's history on the state level https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/nike-h … rom-oregon
More here along with other subsidies:
https://www.fool.com/investing/general/ … the-p.aspx
Here a list from 2015 of the top recipients of federal subsidies:
http://www.governing.com/topics/finance … idies.html
As with everything, we need to have as much information as possible to evaluate whether these deals are in the best interests of the American citizens. If your assumption is they are, you certainly have a lot more faith in the powers that be than I do. I would assume the government is requiring some kind of action or benefit in return. Again, the devil is in the details. If the contracts are as poorly written as the Foxconn deal (I would expect any business 101 student to be able to take that one to the cleaners), then the door is wide open for abuse.
According to Politifact, it appears you are correct in your belief that many banks have not paid back the bailout loans from The Great Recession despite Obama claiming that 'We got back every dime used to rescue the banks'. It seems the arguments get pretty heavily liberal vs. conservative in the US at the moment. I personally just try to step back and evaluate who the crooks are on both sides:
https://www.politifact.com/new-hampshir … eral-bail/
Your second link says exactly what I thought: those "subsidies" are not subsidies at all, but purchases of certain actions that the govt. wishes to see. Chief among them appears to be preferential tax treatment in order to convince a company to build where the state wants them to. We cut business taxes, passing it along to citizens, in order to compete with other states to have a company build in our state.
That isn't a subsidy at all: it is a misbegotten concept that if the citizens of a state pay more taxes they can have a job, growing the states GDP and increasing the power of the state government.
Because they are liberal states, where conservatives rather than liberals get their car keyed?
It looks like I need to look a little deeper into this corporate subsidy topic bud, but as for the "keyed" thing -- you are on your own.
Have you used our public highways, libraries, schools or any other socialist program, onus?
A "living wage" can't be defined across the board. I agree that companies should be encouraged to increase wages; I strongly disagree that we can simply force them to be more charitable than they choose.
He was wrong. A minimum wage does not guarantee jobs, it only guarantees a minimum payout for existing jobs. It is wholly inadequate for the sustaining of an economy.
Consider also the moral implication as well; It steals from the older generations by devaluing the money that your parents and grandparents made over their lifetimes. Every time the minimum wage is raised, prices come up with it, along with cost of living. It is theft pure and simple.
Have you ever used our public highways, went to public school, or used any sort of socialistic program, onus. I know, I've aske you this several times, but surely you're not afraid to answer so you probably missed the many opportunities to clarify your position.
Costs of living have gone up while wages have remained stagnant. That's the theft we see. It's getting harder for people to pay basic expenses because wages haven't matched inflation. That's a fact that I've linked to previously in this thread.
In the 70's with the higher tax rate on those with higher incomes, the poverty level in the country declined to a low of 11% of the population. Cause and effect.
Roosevelt bless him has a good heart but Kennedy stated emphatically ask not what your country can do for you but ask what you can do for your country!
Yeah, the country with the largest middle class in the world.
With a third of the population living near poverty levels. Yeah, we're amazing.
There are people who would kill to be poor in America.
We already have some here who'd kill to be rich....and did.
Onusonus, you are so very right. I've been in several different countries. In our country there are people who have television, the internet, a car, regular food and more who are considered poor. In many countries around the world there is no social safety net. I've seen children in one country who lived in the sewers and worse. In some countries being able to eat in any given day is considered a good day. So, I agree with you, being poor in the United States is much better than most countries.
Try telling that to a socialist. They aren't happy until we all become equally poor.
Q: What did socialists use to light up a room before candles?
A: Light bulbs.
"China has become home to the largest middle class on Earth, with over 225 million households now in this category." https://www.zacks.com/stock/news/264298 … ddle-class
"Canada has the wealthiest middle class of any country in the world." https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answer … -class.asp
Have you ever used our public roads or attended public school, onus?
Randy, do I need to explain to you again that public roads and public school as well as social security have nothing to do with socialism? Those things are paid for by tax dollars created by a capitalistic economic system in our country.
Socialism deals with the government controlling the means of production.
Here is some help..."In economics and sociology, the means of production (also called capital goods) are physical and non-financial inputs used in the production of economic value. These include raw materials, facilities, machinery and tools used in the production of goods and services. In the terminology of classical economics, the means of production are the "factors of production" minus financial and human capital."
It's getting painful trying to explain that Democratic Socialism does not aim to control the means of production. All Mike sees is the word socialism. It's like Jack in the other thread. He cannot discern the actual facts from his own narrative.
Do you think Sweden is a Democratic Socialistic state? Think again.
Higher tax rates that provide many social programs that benefit their population. Sure does sound like a lot like what Democratic Socialist are promoting.
Actually, they have lower taxes than her in the United States. They also have privatized more aspects of their society than here in the United States.
According to a Swedish historian Johan Norberg
“We did have a period in the 1970s and 1980s when we had something that resembled socialism: a big government that taxed and spent heavily. And that’s the period in Swedish history when our economy was going south.”
Per capita GDP fell. Sweden’s growth fell behind other countries. Inflation increased.
Even socialistic Swedes complained about the high taxes.
Yet, even those high taxes did not bring in enough money to fund Sweden’s big welfare state.
“People couldn’t get the pension that they thought they depended on for the future,” recounts Norberg. “At that point, the Swedish population just said, enough, we can’t do this.”
Sweden then reduced government’s role."
https://triblive.com/opinion/featuredco … -socialist
The Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden stands at 61.85 percent. Personal Income Tax Rate in Sweden averaged 56.78 percent from 1995 until 2018, reaching an all time high of 61.85 percent in 2017. Damn those pesky facts rearing their ugly head. See, even the Swedes think higher taxation should be used for social programs like free education through a PhD.
Okay...I don't see your source. Anyone can say anything, I don't know where you got your information.
I did some quick research, and you're right about Sweden.
“The benchmark we use refers to the Top Marginal Tax Rate for individuals.” So, the number you gave was for the TOP wage earners.
https://tradingeconomics.com/sweden/per … e-tax-rate
(I like how people in Saudi Arabia pay NO income tax)
What those numbers don't take into consideration is Sweden's progrdssive income tax.
Sweden has a progressive income tax, the general rates for 2018 are as follows (based on yearly incomes):
0% from 0 kronor to 18,800 kronor
Circa 32% (ca. 11% county and 20% municipality tax which is the Swedish average): from 18,800 kronor to 468,700 kronor
32% + 20%: from 468,700 kronor to 675,700 kronor
32% + 25%: above 675,700 kronor
The first 18,000 kronor of the yearly income are not taxed. Taxable income is reduced by general deductions which means that the marginal tax in practice varies between 7 % on incomes just above 18,800 kronor to 60,1 % on incomes above 675,700 kronor.
For an average salary, on an additional pay of 100 kronor, the employee first pays 32 kronor in income tax (direct, 32%); on top of that, the employer pays an additional 31.42 kronor in employer's social fees (indirect, 31.42%) as a fee for the employee's adherence to the Swedish social security scheme. The effective rate may be lowered by, for example, earned income tax credits and other deductions.
In addition, the employee pays 7 percent in pension contributions to the public system, with a cap at an annual income of 420,447 kr. Thus, the maximum employee contribution is 29,400 kr. The employee's contributions are fully tax-deductible.
I'm far from perfect with my stats. I do try to ground my arguments with a factual basis instead of wild conspiracy theories. He can question their validity, but I'm happy he found an internet search engine too.
If you look at the numbers including capital gains tax, corporate tax etc., Sweden and the US are close in tax rates. Sweden does have their pension program, our Social Security, privatized. That was interesting. Also, parents have school choice. They can choose whether to put their children in public or private schools at the state's expense. Their social programs are also more capitalistic than ours. It was interesting to read about it.
Yes, I want assistance from a Trump adorer. Give Jack the benefit of your "knowledge if you like.
Then why does onus refuse to answer?
Capitalism: Corporations have to convince you to give them your money for a product or service.
Socialism: The state forcibly takes your money.
Democratic Socialism is a bunch of bull...……..It is an excuse for lazy people to get handouts & freebies in order to live a comfortable lifestyle on someone's dime. Rule: if people can't afford something, either work to get more or do without. The gravy train is about to......END & END NOW. People are sick of having their tax monies supporting able-bodied loafers who can be completely self-sufficient. I say REDUCE some social programs by at least 85%. Other inane social programs need to be...…..ERADICATED...……...give our tax monies back to US!
Republican Socialism is an abomination: Filthy rich lazy whimpy slime like Bozo trump or Steve Mnuchin depicted in the above weird picture who either inherited their millions or stole their millions are coddled with "Corporate Welfare TRILLIONS" at the expense of the USA while we still have millions homeless, un-employed and or without Health-CARE and that;s an unforgivable sin the Trumps and Phony Jerry Falwell Junior will serve an eternity in HELL for:
To reiterate, Democratic Socialism is a bunch of bullcrap. If people want something, work for it. I don't believe in anything free. People don't appreciate anything that is given to them-they APPRECIATE what they WORK for! That is the problem w/American society, it has become one big welfare state...……………...There is nothing WRONG w/EARNING one's way. Free college education-really??? What is WRONG w/working one's way through college if parents can't afford to pay for college. The army has programs which will pay for further education granted that one serves. Rule: if one is poor, work for it. I don't believe in freebies. My mother was impoverished-she WORKED her way through high school & college. Poor kids can do the same today. My mother also worked in the summers to supplement family income-IT CAN BE DONE. CUT SOCIAL/WELFARE programs- let people WORK for what they WANT!
You trying to Donald Trump us by repeating your position over and over again until it becomes the reality? We get it. Your family worked hard and reached the middle class that way so you feel it can be accomplished by all. My experience was some of the same, with some outside assistance that gave me financial freedom. The boosts I got helped tremendously to move me away from near poverty to middle class. If we could move more people out of poverty by assisting them with an education, wouldn't that be a good thing for the economy and country?
Strapping an average of $30,000 worth of debt onto 70% of college students doesn't help get them to the middle class either. Imagine how much investing in homes and retirement could have been accomplished without all those debts.
And my father walked 5 miles to and from school, and it was uphill both ways.....
Everyone had it bad during the Great Depression, but Grace acts like her family was one of many who made it through and thrived because of it. I never heard many who did who achieved such without help from others in one form or another.
My mother did it on her own as did my father. Parents grew up in the depression. Learned great lessons from them. They were adamantly against welfare & handouts of any kind. When I was in 8th grade, there was a school trip to Washington D.C., one of the students indicated that he couldn't go on the trip as his parents couldn't afford it so the teacher indicated that he WAS OLD ENOUGH TO WORK to pay for the trip-no handouts! Many poor children worked for what they wanted w/o any outside assistance. IT CAN BE DONE.
One of my earliest memories was when my father--who helped liberate the holocaust camps in Germany--gathered a truckload of corn, gallons of cane syrup, and other items from our farm, to help fill a railroad car for the "refugees".
At this time we didn't have much ourselves, only what we produced on our little farm, but even though I was small at the time, I could feel the honor in his gift.
My problem is I had a huge amount of student debt, but I found a way to pay it off. I don't see the problem. Work two or three jobs if you need to get it paid off. When I got married, my wife also had student loan debt, we found a way to pay it off. I will agree that the costs associated with getting a college degree are out of control. Can we agree a college degree doesn't guarantee you a good job? Too many people go through the motions, get a degree just to get a degree and then think it entitles them to a good job. It's just not how it works. If you want to be guaranteed a good job...trade school graduates make a lot of money. I have no mechanical ability...but if i did.../
A multillion applauses, Mike. If there is a will, there is ALWAYS A WAY. Mike, there are far too many entitled babies who want the government to pad their way in life. Used to be before the so-called Great Society that if a person was impoverished or poor & their parents unfortunately couldn't afford college, the student got a scholarship(if smart), work their way through college(it was/can be done) or went into the military to pay for his/her education. What is wrong w/these Leftists, Mike? Here's what is WRONG:
The government OWES me. The government OWES me. I want FREE healthcare, housing, college education, etc...……..I DON'T CARE WHERE THE MONEY COMES FROM...…….I DON'T CARE...…….RAISE TAXES...…………..I WANT MINE!
So what was your first job, Grace? I started driving a tractor when I was 9 years old.
I worked as a typist on a summer job after high school.
Gee whiz Grace, why did you wait so long to get a job? You should've had at least a part time job when you reached your early teenage years. What a mooch!
Didn't have to work part-time jobs as a teenager. I was lucky-thankful to my parents. Not all teenagers have to work part-time...……..(laughing fiendishly).
Yes, my dossier is nearly completed.
And unlike your scared self, Grace has a bio already which tells one about her. Because she's giving her opinion and unafraid of who knows it, I admire her very much although we disagree on things. You, on the other hand, earn no one's respect by hiding and posting stolen memes. See the difference?
by Kathryn L Hill 10 months ago
Everyone knows it is not fair to tax someone just because they generate huge amounts of money. Yet the democratic/(Left-influenced)/youth take the rich for granted targeting them just for being successful. The rich already pay a higher tax rate. The rich are people too. Why take unfair advantage of...
by ga anderson 3 months ago
I saw Marx mentioned in a thread and then by chance stumbled across this site: misesvsmarx.aier.org - The March of History Of course, I admit it appealed to me because it leans my way, but it does have some good basic information if you are interested in the Marx/Socialism issue but don't want to...
by A Thousand Words 5 years ago
There's no one to step on/take advantage of anymore?Capitalism is defined as:- free-market system: an economic system based on the private ownership of the means of production and distribution of goods, characterized by a free competitive market and motivation by profit. Doesn't raise any red flags...
by cjhunsinger 9 years ago
If it is true that the US is on the road to socialism and if it is being orchestrated by UN treaty; how bad can that be? Equality must be mandated, income, housing and the family must all be defined by government otherwise some may suffer. Health care must also be administered by government,schools...
by Josh Ratzburg 4 years ago
Why are we so afraid of Democratic Socialism?
by Grace Marguerite Williams 7 weeks ago
While there are Americans who contend that the Republican Party is the sensible, even reasonable party, there are others who assert that the Republican Party has become reactionary, even rightist in its sociopolitical philosophy. The latter maintain that it is the reactionary/rightist faction...
Copyright © 2020 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
HubPages Inc, a part of Maven Inc.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|