Socialism aside....If there were no other reason, this stands alone....sm
Posted By: ms on 2008-10-08
In Reply to: The Obama debate all should read... - sam
as the greatest reason to despise this man.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
sm clearly stands for
small message. NM stands for no message so you don't have to waste your time clicking on the link. I can see why you are an Obama supporter now. LOL!
It stands for
asdf
It stands for
asdflkjh
Against it as it stands.....
like I said, tax cuts don't work (as evidence by the current crisis we are in). They need to go back to the drawing board and figure out a spending bill that helps the most devastated states by continuing jobs and creating jobs. Forget the little checks. We need more than that.
I respect someone who stands for what they believe in...
and you obviously do, and I appreciate that you also respect my stand. While we agree to disagree on certain things, we have had this exchange without making it mean or personal. Be Blessed!
I am SO impressed with everything Obama stands
<3 Obama 
But he's the MAVERICK that stands up to his own party - nm
x
Wanna know what Obama stands for?
One
Big
A$$
Mistake,
America!
Let's face it, he stands no chance of winning. However, with the
econmy in mind, he would definitely be the guy to fix this horrible situation we find ourselves in. My whole intention in giving my vote to Mr. Nader is this: I am not going to give up my right to vote, I will be at the polls and I will cast my vote. That being said, I am sick and tired of being lied to and manipulated. I am tired of having my intelligence insulted over and over again by politics as usual in Washington. I will cast a vote and send a message. I know that my tiny vote and its tiny message won't be heard, but I will have satisfaction in knowing that I followed my heart and I did not vote for any Washington liar. We need a change alright and neither McCain or Obama is going to bring it.
It also stands for National Drug Code but no
It's the National Democratic Congress, of which I'm sure some of you, or maybe not.....never mind. I've realized dems on this board aren't really interested in really finding out about the real Obama.
Study up and don't come back here acting as if you can't find anything. If you want, you will. And you'll know it when you see it.
Connect the dots.
This is the reason we are in Iraq and it's the same reason I didn't vote for him in 2000: Didn't
his own personal reasons.
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php
The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.
Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."
Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.
In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.
"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"
Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.
Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.
Conversations With Bush The Candidate
Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.
The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.
I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."
Debating The Timeline For War
But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.
The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.
On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"
I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."
"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …
"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.
Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.
Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"
Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.
Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."
Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.
Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.
Socialism
AMEN!!!
The era of socialism
With the bailout by the US government, each and every one of us will be mortgage lenders to the tune of $7000 per taxpayer. We will officially be socialists, brought to you by your favorite political party the REPUBLICANS.
what's so bad about socialism?
bring it on!
You won't get socialism. That is #1....
and frankly my greatest concern with Obama.
McCain is the only one talking about reforming Washington, freezing spending except in crucial programs until we get out of this mess...he is talking about more affordable health care, not government controlled health care. Yes, Obama says you can keep your employer insurance and if you can't, the government will take care of you. HOw long do you think employers will be able to offer insurance under Obama's socialist agenda? Not long, because he is increasing taxes on them. And not accidentally either. One step further down the road to socialism.
And I am ready for naming names and showing some responsibility. Unless Obama is an id*ot, he knows that Dodd and Frank are up to their eyeballs in this mess. He should call for their resignations. THAT would show character, which seems to be important to you. The democratic leadership instead PRAISE them for their roles in engineering this bailout. That to me is a total LACK of character. McCain called for the resignation of the Republican involved...Chris Cox. THAT is character.
I see absolutely nothing but a downhill spiral in an Obama administration. The USSA. Venezuela north. NO thank you.
Not only socialism....
he is not even President yet and his campaign and followers are practicing big-time intimidation. That reporter in Florida had the guts to ask Biden a hard question, the campaign says no soup for you! Cancelled the rest of the scheduled interviews. Said they would not be given access in an Obama administration. A maxed-out contributor to Obama's campaign ordered a background check on Joe the Plumber...just an average American who asked Obama a hard question. People have been threatened when they say anything negative about him. What are these people going to do if they get REAL power? Food for thought.
socialism
Socialism refers to a broad set of economic theories of social organization advocating state or collective ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods, and the creation of an egalitarian society.
So it's okay to consistently call Obama a socialist and not Palin? Do you even look this stuff up or is that just you being Mavericky?
socialism
An economics professor at Texas Tech University , Lubbock , TX said he had never failed a single student before but had, once, failed an entire class. The majority of that class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer. The professor then said ok, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism.
All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A. After the first test the grades were averaged, everyone got a B. The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy. But, as the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too, so they studied little. The second Test average was a D! No one was happy. When the 3rd test rolled around the average was an F.
The scores never increased as bickering, blame, name calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for anyone else.
All failed to their great surprise and the professor told them that socialism would ultimately fail because the harder to succeed the greater the reward but when a government takes all the reward away, no one will try or succeed.
When You Reward Failure, All You Get is More Failure!
Viva socialism!!
if you're going to make a statement gt don't beat around the bush. Just come right out and say it.
I'm sure they would welcome you with open arms.
socialism-capitalism
Libby, I have always believed in socialism..socialism and capitalism can work hand in hand. Socialism has nothing to do with communism or dictatorship..it has to do with providing the life essentials to ALL people, shelter, food, health care, a job for all..respect and not poverty for all, oil to heat our homes in the winter so we dont freeze to death! For pete sake..It blows my mind that the richest country in the world allows some to die in the streets, homeless. Families in the streets homeless..Those that want jobs cant find them or if they do, it is minimum wage..How the heck can ANYONE survive on minimum wage? There are just too many capitalists who are making money off of the middle class and working poor and they have strong lobbyists and politicians being paid off to pass bills to help them and companies who no longer care about the workers..
Enough of the socialism accusations
Here's you link expanded.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
1. Any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods.
2. a: A system of society or group living in which there is no private property. b: A system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3. A stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done.
Notice that socialism is predicated on the concept of collective/governmental ownership of private property. Here are a couple of links for you. Looks like Obama is pretty much into private ownership. The list below is of title to various economic stimulus plans. They pretty much seem to be centered around free enterprise concepts. Now show me your links where Obama has indicated abolishing private ownership and replacing it with government collective ownership, if you don't mind.
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/
“I believe that America's free market has been the engine of America's great progress. It's created a prosperity that is the envy of the world. It's led to a standard of living unmatched in history. And it has provided great rewards to the innovators and risk-takers who have made America a beacon for science, and technology, and discovery. We are all in this together. From CEOs to shareholders, from financiers to factory workers, we all have a stake in each other's success because the more Americans prosper, the more America prospers.”— Barack Obama, New York, NY, September 17, 2007
http://www.barackobama.com/issues/economy/#home-ownership
Plan to Protect Homeownership and Crack Down on Mortgage Fraud.
Create a New FHA Housing Security Program
Create a Universal Mortgage Credit
Ensure More Accountability in the Subprime Mortgage Industry
Mandate Accurate Loan Disclosure
Create Fund to Help Homeowners Avoid Foreclosures
Close Bankruptcy Loophole for Mortgage Companies
Establish a $10 billion Foreclosure Prevention Fund
Provide $10 billion in Relief for State and Local Governments Hardest-Hit by the Housing Crisis to Prevent Cuts in Vital Services
Invest in our Next Generation Innovators and Job Creators
Double Funding for the Manufacturing Extension Partnership/Job creation
Invest In A Clean Energy Economy And Create 5 Million New Green Jobs
Create New Job Training Programs for Clean Technologies
Boost the Renewable Energy Sector and Create New Jobs
Provide Tax Relief for Small Businesses and Start Up Companies
Raise the Minimum Wage
Expand the Child and Dependent Care Tax Credit
There are many more examples but I just got tired of cut and paste.
She's smart enough what socialism is all
xx
You got it, Sam.... and socialism will kill our
nm
Socialism IS an issue. nm
nm
No socialism, nobama, no way. nm
nm
Socialism vs dictatorship
Didn't Bush make the comment, "if this were a dictatorship it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so I'm the dictator." Well, he appointed himself the "decider" didn't he? We're closer to a dictatorship than we've ever been. I will not be totally surprised if we come under martial law before the election takes place. There are major issues at stake here people. Instead of arguing for or against McCain/Palin, Obama/Biden, we need to discussing what we can do to change the course of America and neither of these clowns are going to provide the change we need...that is going back to government of the people, for the people. So long as they can keep us fighting over Democrats/Republicans, we don't have time to address the REAL ISSUES. Our very freedom is at risk!!!!!
We all better study up on socialism..it's on its way
if people don't smarten up and look beyond the promises and pretty speeches.
Is that your only argument for socialism?
My word....people are committing adultery on both sides of the fence, that will never change. What in the world does that have to do with socialism and socialists candidate?
I know what the definition of socialism is
xx
Sounds like socialism. nm
nm
"Hopeful" for what? socialism? No, they are
nm
Socialism Question
For those who are crying socialism; how come no one has said that about the credits people get for having children (for how long now)? Childless people are contributing money for that.
Isn't our government suppose to work for the good of all (to the best it can)? I think it's called team work not socialism.
It has to be examined and monitored carefully so there are no gross malfunctions. There have been. It's time to reorganize.
we are not being forced into socialism -
Obama is not a socialist.
I might would agree that we woudl be socialized if Hillary had won, but I do not consider Obama a socialist.
We have had aspects of socialism since
the introduction of income tax and the creation of social security. We are even farther into a socialistic state with the recent bailouts and the more to come. As far as your concerns about a Marxist state, you have fewer of your constitutionally guaranteed rights now than ever before.
It is not going to matter who is president, the next few years are going to be tough.
For those of you who so fear socialism
(and I don't want to see socialism), what do you think the Bush administration has done? Buying interests in banks, etc.
I also know quite a few wealthy folks and some who are just well-to-do. All grieve their losses in the stock market and they are all RABID REPUBLICANS who supported John McCain. They HATE Obama. They "get it." They hate him because they believe he is going to raise their taxes so he can lower taxes on the working class. All of them have been part of the working class. The wealthiest one is a widow who married her money. They aren't afraid of "Robin Hood," they're afraid of having to give back some of the windfall Bush gave them with his tax cuts.
Just the beginning of socialism
nm
You think O is the answer? Socialism does not
nm
socialism for a shrinking planet
Im not beating around the bush. Im amazed there is a leader who is that compassionate to care for all of his people. I cant remember a time when America had a leader like that. Closest I can think of is when Social Security was created. Socialism is a fair ideology for all the people of a country. Capitalism certainly isnt, that is unless all a person cares about is making as much money as they can and then locking themselves away in a gated community, driving on the outskirts of the ghetto areas of downtown so they dont have to see how the unfortunate ones live. I, on the other hand, care about people. I put caring before money. All Americans should have a well paying job, a chance to go to college, even if you cant afford it, a roof over your head, a full belly at night, medical care. One major thing that eats away at me is knowing some people do not go through life happy because their whole life is a neverending struggle, mostly due to no fault of their own. I see the writing on the wall, too bad the fat cat capitalists who are so greedy and hording that money away dont. As the population grows in the world, supplies and resources will dwindle. Government programs will have to be created to take care of the people whose only fault is they werent born with a silver spoon in their mouth and not born when houses were inexpensive, college was easy to get into and inexpensive, jobs were plentiful and not outsourced, etc. The masses will out-mass the greedy capitalists and then we will see something like what is happening in Venezuela now..Equality for ALL Americans in the basic needs of life and dignity. Sure there are some fat cat capitalists who are truly good people and are helping the unfortunate and I applaud them but from what I have seen, the majority of the super rich, dont give a darn about the working class or working poor or poor. No person should die on the street for lack of housing or only have a minimum wage job so they cant afford to rent or buy. No person should go to bed at night hungry even though they have worked one or two jobs but had to choose between the rent, gas or food. I see where Capitalism can go hand and hand with Socialism and that is what truly is going to happen. America, the richest country on earth, yet we dont have medical care for our citizens, we have homeless in the streets, maternity leave is not paid for, we take the less amount of vacation days than any other industrialized country. When Kruschev visited America for the first time, he asked why did America have homeless. He stated that The Soviet Socialists Republic did not have homeless, they might have a few families living in the same apartment but they werent homeless. How shameful for America. America might have been great a few decades ago but it is leaving much to want for now and it will only get worse with the division of the classes..poor, working poor, middle class, rich and super rich, which is happening now, and the dwindling resources and opportunities. Now, go ahead, call me a raging lunatic. You have your right to your opinion, however, this is my take on today's America and it makes my heart heavy.
A vote for this person = Socialism at its best. sm
1) "We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good."
A. Karl Marx
B. Adolph Hitler
C. Joseph Stalin
D. None of the above
2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity."
A. Lenin
B. Mussolini
C. Idi Amin
D. None of the Above
3) "(We)...can't just let business as usual go on, and that means something has to be taken away from some people."
A. Nikita Khrushev
B. Jose f Goebbels
C. Boris Yeltsin
D. None of the above
4) "We have to build a political consensus and that requires people to give up a little bit of their own...in order to create this common ground."
A. Mao Tse Dung
B. Hugo Chavez
C. Kim Jong Il
D. None of the above
5) "I certainly think the free-market has failed."
A. Karl Marx
B. Lenin
C. Molotov
D. None of the above
6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to what has become the most profitable sector in (the) entire economy that they are being watched."
A. Pinochet
B. Milosevic
C. Saddam Hussein
D. None of the above
Answers:
(1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
(2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
(3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
(6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
The inevitable end result of socialism...
dictatroship. Historically it has happened time and time and time again. What is dictatorship if not altering the constitution to re-elect yourself for life, centralizing all power in yourself...yada yada. At least some Venezuelans realized it before it was too late. If he loses the referendum they could be looking at civil war as well.
Exactly...basic tenet of socialism.
I thought Hillary was the major socialist...he puts her to shame.
socialism eventually = dictatorship....
Obama is a far left socialist. Way too far left socialist for me. Sarah Palin or no Sarah Palin...would still have voted for McCain.
Over generalization....socialism is redistribution
xx
That is always how socialism takes hold....
promises, pretty speeches, and class warfare. How many posts have you seen here about "I am tired of the rich getting richer" and "we need someone to represent the middle class, not the rich" yada yada. It is already taking hold. And it NEVER works. All you end up with in socialism is all the money at the top (the government and cronies) and the rest of us at the bottom. The middle class DISAPPEARS. Look at venezuela...at Cuba...at the USSR before it broke up...and they will drag us all down the drain with them.
But mark my words...if it happens, won't be THEIR fault. Would be laughable if not so darned sad.
The "revolution" started as socialism....
and as socialism generally does, rolls into communism and dictatorship. Che Guevara introduced communism to Castro. Che Guevara...far left Marxist. The one whose pic is in an Obama campaign office. Obama studied and taught Alinsky method of organizing...Alinsky = communist. See a common socialist/communist thread here?
Who is the REAL Barack Obama? Does anyone really know?
Next step to socialism.......government
xx
What part of socialism do you not understand?
Or better yet, please educate yourself. If you don't understand what socialism is, then you will never get that Obama is putting us on the path to just that. I sadly enough realize so many actually believe their government is supposed to take care of them, which it is not at all supposed to do. Socialists believe government should help pay for them because without government the citizens can't function. A socialist believes more social programs is a necessity of life. Obama has said with his own mouth more taxes, more government, more social programs. How many more facts do you need? Why do repubs keep coming up? Why do people like you always think there must be a repub on the other end of a concern or there should be no concern. I AM A DEMOCRAT but I can GUARANTEE you I know a socialists when I see it and this man is a socialist. I do not want to TAKE CARE of any more people. He should be preaching get up, get an education, take care of yourselves.
Tell me one time you have heard him say LESS GOVERNMENT, SMALLER GOVERNMENT, LESS GOVERNMENT INTERFERENCE IN YOUR LIFE? Go ahead....prove me wrong. Where has he actually said those words.
It is interesting how these socialism smears
The fact that the US holds the greatest income inequity among all the developed countries. Income gains since the 1980s (Reagan years) have been slower, despite higher productivity, low unemployment rates and low inflation (until recently, that is). Median income rose over 80% for ALL classes between 1947 and 1980. While the general trend since the 1980s has been one of slow growth because of the increase in 2-income households, closing the gender gap and longer work yours, it has occurred as much greater accelerated rate for the TOP 1% OF EARNERS. The lowest 20% of income earners have seen their incomes rise by around 6%, while the top 1% or income earners have had an obscene increase of 175%!
At the end of 2001, the top 20% of income earners controlled a whopping 84% of all the wealth, 10% of the population owned 71% of the total national wealth and the top 1% controlled more than one-third of the wealth at 38%. Do that math. The bottom 80% (households earning $80,372 or less annually) controlled 16% of the wealth, the bottom 40%, (earning less than $40,184) less than 1% of the wealth.
Just mull those numbers over for a spell and decide if this picture seems fair and equitable. The issue is not one of socialism. It has to do with the notion of salary/wage parity. We can all see the results of an economy where this kind of wealth is concentrated in the hands of a few. Spreading the wealth does not necessarily mean enriching some at the expense of others. It means putting the control of national wealth in MORE hands, not fewer. I for one am all for seeing those hard-working, bill-paying, nose to the grindstone folks get more bucks and more bang for their bucks. How one looks at "spreading the wealth" is a bit like the proverbial half-full/half empty glass of water.
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
What is the bank bail-out if not socialism? s/m
Maybe you'd have better luck with your employees if you gave them a raise. If you have a profit margin that allows you to give them a 25% bonus, surely a 10% raise wouldn't cause you to suffer too much.
The people obsessing about socialism don't
have a clue what it is really about. They obviously have been watching too much Hannity and Fix News! There are many countries that are operating very successfully on a socialist-based economy, and I dare say, those same countries have the lowest rates of employment, the lowest crime rates and generally have the overall happiest populace. I bet these same people that protest so much about socialism sure will accept the Social Security checks when they retire, or be glad to have Medicare benefits. What do you think these programs are based on?
When did socialism and universal healthcare
nm
|
