Example# 1,000,000,015 showing why government spending doesn't solve problems

[MikeK]

Like I said: Why do you feel entitled to that which you didn't earn?

I don't feel entitled to anything. I've been fortunate enough to have lived the American dream which unfortunately is no longer accessible to same segment of Americans as it once was. My concern is for my grandchildren's generation.

Ever consider getting off your ass and working to better your lot in life? Or it is easier to sit around and bitch impotently on the internet that people should give you their stuff?

One aspect of your obvious right-wing indoctrination is the tendency to assign stereotypes to those who disagree with your delusions. The fact is I am quite content with my lot in life and have no need to improve it. I have a comfortable home, a generous civil service pension, Social Security, Medicare and the monthly interest from a modest stack of U.S. Savings Bonds. I also drive a Cadillac. Not a new one but a nice one. All of those comforts derive from the promise made to me by an economic system which is no longer accessible to as many Americans as it once was -- because of the greedy manipulations and criminal maneuvering of the new breed of Robber Barons whom you have been brainwashed to believe in and to represent.

 

[rdean]

Too many right wingers live in this fantasy world where they believe rich people are some kind of "demiGods" who should be able to squeeze everything they can out of this country and not bother with putting anything back. I guess we should just feel "blessed" with their presence.

Even a farmer knows you have to water plants and feed them or they die. A well tended garden will last forever. You can't just "take", except in the fantasy world of the Republicans.

 

[MikeK]

blahblahblah.
Marxism was disproven a very long time ago. Seems you didn't get the message.
A guy on an assembly line is worthless without tools, materials, and a market for what he makes. There are lots of people who can work on an assembly line. There aren't too many who can design advanced machine tools. There are very few who succesfully develop a product. And there are a very very small number who can put all of that together so the operation makes money. And that is how people are paid.
Take your Marxism and shove it up your dustbin of history.

What have I said that suggests to you that I am a Marxist?

I'm a neo-Socialist. I have no objection to the accumulation of wealth by anyone who is able to legitimately acquire it. But I am strongly opposed to excessive wealth and I believe there is an important need for government to limit the amount of personal assets that any individual citizen may accumulate. In other words I believe in a capitalist economic system which is regulated by broadly altruistic socialist safeguards.

The safeguards I'm talking about are those which existed before Ronald Reagan initiated the trend of deregulating the financial sector and reducing the progressive tax rates of the emerging corporatocracy and the super-rich. The outcome of that destructive political trend is what we are experiencing today. Even someone as duplictious as you seem to be cannot deny that America's most successful and productive economic period occurred during the time when those safeguards (regulations), most of which were imposed by the Roosevelt Administration, remained in place and were strictly enforced by a relatively uncorrupted Congress.

A return to that period of economic equity and stability is what I advocate. And it compares in no way to Marxism.

 

[MikeK]

Daveman, it's called "class envy". It is the belief that because you work hard at your job you ought to get the same pay (or more) as someone who sits in an office. Never mind that you have limited job skills. Never mind that you have limited schooling. Never mind that you have limited responsibility. It's all about MMMEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

There was a time when the CEO of the average corporation earned between ten and twenty times more than the highest paid worker. Today that ratio has increased by several hundred times. So this idea you have that dissatisfaction with the increasingly inequitable distribution of wealth which is produced within the economic framework of American society derives from communist ambitions is purely delusional. No such thinking appears anywhere in this thread.

There is no question that the CEO of a corporation, or the owner of a small business, should earn more than those whom he employs. And there is no question that a skilled worker should earn more than one who is unskilled. That is not an issue. What is at issue is the increasing disparity in wages which is gradually but unmistakably undermining the American middle class and moving in the direction of a new Gilded Age, an era which consisted of the rich, the poor and the destitute.

There is no good reason why any American citizen should possess more material wealth than is needed to lead a life of casual luxury while millions of other citizens should be forced by the very means that created such excessive fortune to live in abject poverty, but this is precisely the situation emerging in America today.

 

[The Rabbi]

Since you've already admitted to being a "neo Socialist" (whatever that is) further rational discussion is precluded.
How much wealth anyone has is none of your business.
On to iggy with your pals.

 

[MikeK]

Since you've already admitted to being a "neo Socialist" (whatever that is) further rational discussion is precluded.

Briefly stated, the original concept of socialism calls for exclusion of private ownership of and profiting from the means of production and distribution of products and services. Neo-socialism allows a system of private ownership and derived profit (capitalism) which is held in check by certain socialist policies such as a progressive tax rate to prevent excessive accumulation of assets (disruptive political power) and the administration of such beneficial programs as Social Security, Medicare, public education, public transportation, maintenance of infrastructure, etc.

Essentially it is the system that functioned quite nicely from 1945 until Ronald Reagan initiated the destructive policies which have resulted in the situation we have today. Neo-socialism is capitalism with altruistic intentions.

How much wealth anyone has is none of your business.

Not at this time. But when change comes, and it will because it must, it will be abrupt and severe. So the sooner it happens the better it will be for all concerned, because things simply cannot continue the way they've been going.

 

[rdean]

How can people complain about "socialism" when they work so hard to send jobs to "China"? It only makes that country stronger and ours weaker. I don't get it.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. The Soviet Union failed. Thanks for pointing out your entire premise is wrong.

 

[MikeK]

How can people complain about "socialism" when they work so hard to send jobs to "China"? It only makes that country stronger and ours weaker. I don't get it.

Because they've been effectively indoctrinated. Words like socialism constipate them.

 

[MikeK]

Yes. The Soviet Union failed. Thanks for pointing out your entire premise is wrong.

The Soviet Union was in fact communist, not neo-socialist (or socialist as its name, USSR, erroneously implies.)

Once again, I am not a communist or a Marxist. I'm a neo-socialist, which means I believe capitalism is good so long as its growth is held in check by altruistic socialist policies and controls.

 

[The Rabbi]

Yes. The Soviet Union failed. Thanks for pointing out your entire premise is wrong.

The Soviet Union was in fact communist, not neo-socialist (or socialist as its name, USSR, erroneously implies.)

Once again, I am not a communist or a Marxist. I'm a neo-socialist, which means I believe capitalism is good so long as its growth is held in check by altruistic socialist policies and controls.

Distinction without a difference.
But Sweden failed too.

 

[loosecannon]

The Soviet Union was in fact communist.

That is highly debatable and certainly not true in a strict sense.

What the SU wasn't is a socialist state that evolved into commyism. That's what commyism is, literally.

What he SU was was a full frontal top down authoritarian state which may see similar to communism but is actually very very different. It is closer to a strict oligarchy of a strict monarchy. The difference of course being a ruling party instead of a ruling family or class.

But they ruled with an iron fist.