socialism for a shrinking planet
Posted By: gt on 2005-08-29
In Reply to: Viva socialism!! - Reality check
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.
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
You are in a steadily shrinking minority. nm
.
What planet do you guys come from?
You actually think people by this stuff as genuine. Again, do you actually think through what you state, or do you state it for the shock effect. I assume it's the latter.
We can and do affect this planet.
While I agree that we can't exactly know how much we have to do with changing cycles on the planet, there is simply NO doubt that we have had a profound impact upon it. Even when I was a kid there were springs we could drink from and rivers we could swim in without fear of chemical burns. The fields were loaded with turtles and other creatures, every pond and creek was alive wtih frogs and tadpoles and fish. Ask your grandparents what they remember the countryside being like before the supreme arrogance of corporate policy poisoned every water source we have. There was a time that tuna fish didn't have mercury in it. On and on. Don't dismiss the concern many have over the impact we DO have on our planet as arrogance - we are certainly having a BAD BAD impact globally.
And true, not just us. However, America along with other industrialized nations and bankers is certainly complicit in the globalization movement (i.e., move into other lands, usurp the resouces from the native people, give them toxic sludge for their crops as a sort of side joke, suck out all their groundwater, make the corporations richer). We certainly don't stand against it politically or financially.
While the planet may survive the sweeping changes its most prolific environment-altering parasites inflict upon it, we probably will not. Just look at Mars if you don't think a planet can die. Regardless of why, it's certainly dead enough. So are we going to wait to be shaken off like pesky fleas - or are we going to make some effort to SUSTAIN our world and keep it in balance rather than continuously insulting it to the point where we DESERVE to be exterminated? Some of us don't have a deep-seated death wish. Some of us don't think money is more important than good living. Some of us are actually fond of this planet. Excuse US for thinking of it that way.
Flying around? What planet are you from?
He got on Airforce One following the protocol for protecting the POTUS. You know, Air Force One, the flying command center of the United States? The VP has a separate protocol and was taken to a separate location. Geeze, maybe you should avail yourself of some information before you post from now on.
He wasn't 'flying around.' Sorry to pop your conspiracy theory bubble, darling, but get your head on straight. And maybe you should educate yourself about the Katrina situation before you open your gob and vomit out the same tired 'bush caused katrina' drivel.
OBAMA IS A WEAKLING. GRAB YOUR ANKLES AND WAIT FOR FURTHER INSTRUCTIONS.
What planet do you live on?
"When it comes to disease, we have a choice." Just taking the moist obvious, those babies born with fatal anomalies made bad choices? The stillborn infants made bad choices? You must have had a much busier uterus than I did.
Be glad you're not Catholic. Based on your acknowledgement that being judgmental is a sin, you'd be spending a lot of time on your knees in that confessional.
what planet did you drop in on......no, all welfare
nm
Bush wants to nuke the planet first, ask questions later.
I hope the Congress isn't stupid enough to go along with this idiotic plan and once again trust Bush's lying claims about who has WMD and who doesn't. Bush isn't going to be happy until he blows up the entire planet. It's becoming clearer every day that he meant what he said when asked about his legacy, he responded with, Who cares? We'll all be dead. 
Pentagon Revises Nuclear Strike Plan
Strategy Includes Preemptive Use Against Banned Weapons
By Walter Pincus
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, September 11, 2005; A01
The Pentagon has drafted a revised doctrine for the use of nuclear weapons that envisions commanders requesting presidential approval to use them to preempt an attack by a nation or a terrorist group using weapons of mass destruction. The draft also includes the option of using nuclear arms to destroy known enemy stockpiles of nuclear, biological or chemical weapons.
The document, written by the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs staff but not yet finally approved by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, would update rules and procedures governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a preemption strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002. The strategy was outlined in more detail at the time in classified national security directives.
At a White House briefing that year, a spokesman said the United States would respond with overwhelming force to the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, its forces or allies, and said all options would be available to the president.
The draft, dated March 15, would provide authoritative guidance for commanders to request presidential approval for using nuclear weapons, and represents the Pentagon's first attempt to revise procedures to reflect the Bush preemption doctrine. A previous version, completed in 1995 during the Clinton administration, contains no mention of using nuclear weapons preemptively or specifically against threats from weapons of mass destruction.
Titled Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations and written under the direction of Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the draft document is unclassified and available on a Pentagon Web site. It is expected to be signed within a few weeks by Air Force Lt. Gen. Norton A. Schwartz, director of the Joint Staff, according to Navy Cmdr. Dawn Cutler, a public affairs officer in Myers's office. Meanwhile, the draft is going through final coordination with the military services, the combatant commanders, Pentagon legal authorities and Rumsfeld's office, Cutler said in a written statement.
A summary of changes included in the draft identifies differences from the 1995 doctrine, and says the new document revises the discussion of nuclear weapons use across the range of military operations.
The first example for potential nuclear weapon use listed in the draft is against an enemy that is using or intending to use WMD against U.S. or allied, multinational military forces or civilian populations.
Another scenario for a possible nuclear preemptive strike is in case of an imminent attack from adversary biological weapons that only effects from nuclear weapons can safely destroy.
That and other provisions in the document appear to refer to nuclear initiatives proposed by the administration that Congress has thus far declined to fully support.
Last year, for example, Congress refused to fund research toward development of nuclear weapons that could destroy biological or chemical weapons materials without dispersing them into the atmosphere.
The draft document also envisions the use of atomic weapons for attacks on adversary installations including WMD, deep, hardened bunkers containing chemical or biological weapons.
But Congress last year halted funding of a study to determine the viability of the Robust Nuclear Earth Penetrator warhead (RNEP) -- commonly called the bunker buster -- that the Pentagon has said is needed to attack hardened, deeply buried weapons sites.
The Joint Staff draft doctrine explains that despite the end of the Cold War, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction raises the danger of nuclear weapons use. It says that there are about thirty nations with WMD programs along with nonstate actors [terrorists] either independently or as sponsored by an adversarial state.
To meet that situation, the document says that responsible security planning requires preparation for threats that are possible, though perhaps unlikely today.
To deter the use of weapons of mass destruction against the United States, the Pentagon paper says preparations must be made to use nuclear weapons and show determination to use them if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.
The draft says that to deter a potential adversary from using such weapons, that adversary's leadership must believe the United States has both the ability and will to pre-empt or retaliate promptly with responses that are credible and effective. The draft also notes that U.S. policy in the past has repeatedly rejected calls for adoption of 'no first use' policy of nuclear weapons since this policy could undermine deterrence.
Rep. Ellen Tauscher (D-Calif.), a member of the House Armed Services Committee who has been a leading opponent of the bunker-buster program, said yesterday the draft was apparently a follow-through on their nuclear posture review and they seem to bypass the idea that Congress had doubts about the program. She added that members certainly don't want the administration to move forward with a [nuclear] preemption policy without hearings, closed door if necessary.
A spokesman for Sen. John W. Warner (R-Va.), chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said yesterday the panel has not yet received a copy of the draft.
Hans M. Kristensen, a consultant to the Natural Resources Defense Council, who discovered the document on the Pentagon Web site, said yesterday that it emphasizes the need for a robust nuclear arsenal ready to strike on short notice including new missions.
Kristensen, who has specialized for more than a decade in nuclear weapons research, said a final version of the doctrine was due in August but has not yet appeared.
This doctrine does not deliver on the Bush administration pledge of a reduced role for nuclear weapons, Kristensen said. It provides justification for contentious concepts not proven and implies the need for RNEP.
One reason for the delay may be concern about raising publicly the possibility of preemptive use of nuclear weapons, or concern that it might interfere with attempts to persuade Congress to finance the bunker buster and other specialized nuclear weapons.
In April, Rumsfeld appeared before the Senate Armed Services panel and asked for the bunker buster study to be funded. He said the money was for research and not to begin production on any particular warhead. The only thing we have is very large, very dirty, big nuclear weapons, Rumsfeld said. It seems to me studying it [the RNEP] makes all the sense in the world.
Barney Frank.....what planet did he fall off
Barney Frank wants less govt and state rights when it comes to drugs.... but he wants "regulation" and "more enforcement" when it comes to everything else that takes away MY rights...... what a joke!
At least I will be on the other side of the planet from you when your vale of tears start.
NM
Really? Pubs in charge of the purse strings? What planet
...no wonder we're in this mess, and it will only get worse.
What planet R U from that you think Welfare and WIC can even come close truly supporting adequately.
A mother (job training, if you want her to pay taxes back into society, day care, so she can work with a safe place for her chld), a SAFE neighborhood to bring up the child, emotional support, do you even know what clothing and shoes cost, formula, diapers, and if we just keep handing out WElfare, how do we break that "chain" when the child grows and the cycle repeats, the President realizes it takes much, much more than a cheap handout, it takes work programs, work training programs, availabiity of safe, good child care, medical care, nutritional care, educational opportunities.....that was a cold statement without forethought to what it is really like, I have three chldren, my husband and I both work very hard, overtime and all, and it is still unbelievably hard and close!
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
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?
Socialism aside....If there were no other reason, this stands alone....sm
as the greatest reason to despise this man.
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
|
