Socialism for the wealthy?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Caligirl, Sep 8, 2008.

  1. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240
    I've heard recently that our current taxation, credits, bailouts, etc - all favor the wealthy. Take the Fannie-Freddie bailout. Taxpayers will pay for this, and shareholders have their investments secured by that taxation.

    In other words, we have a system that is capitalistic for the poor, but socialistic for the wealthy. It's a creepy idea.

    This idea has also been talked about as privatization of profits, and all the risk in investing ultimately being borne by the masses.

    None of us want socialism (we're all true blue here), so tell me, is our system capitalistic for the poor, and socialistic for the wealthy?

    Any good ideas?

    You can also read about this under the key terms Moral Hazard.

    Moral hazard - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  2. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962

    The rich are truly getting richer in this country. The top 1% are certainly controlling more and gaining more of the money.

    This disturbing graph is a good such example.

    Digg - The Wide Divide (Graph of CEO pay vs Average Worker)

    As I mentioned in another thread, trickle-down economics that the Reagan, Bush 41, and Dubya Administration have used at certain times have certainly helped make the rich even richer.

    Because lets face it, their economic-political argument that the increases in the wealth of the rich are good for the poor because some of such additional wealth will eventually trickle down to the middle class and to the poor.

    However, if the rich are keeping that money, reinvesting it, having to pay less,etc then there is less to trickle down to the middle class and the poor.

    If you think things are bad now? Wait three years if things stay the same.

    I think George Carlin defined it best:

    "Capitalism tries for a delicate balance: It attempts to work things out so that everyone gets just enough stuff to keep them from getting violent and trying to take other people’s stuff." - George Carlin

    [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dy4Tg_uR_Bg]YouTube - Consumer capitalism[/ame]
     
  3. Caligirl
    Offline

    Caligirl Oh yes it is too!

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    2,567
    Thanks Received:
    240
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +240
    But are they getting richer because the government protects their money?

    We value wealth, so in a sense it makes sense to protect it., Does the government protect wealth, and does this mean the wealthy are protected from losing money moreso than the poor?

    Fannie-Freddie is a current example.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  4. Red Dawn
    Offline

    Red Dawn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,224
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Liberal Socialist Paradise
    Ratings:
    +456

    Yes, we're drifting back to a plutocracy, which is what we had until the modern progressive era starting with Teddy Roosevelt.

    The rich will always be protected. No matter who is president.

    I'm a big admirer of hybrid capitalist systems, like they have in the scandinavian countries.
     
  5. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    Of course the Gov't protects their money.

    Gov't puts Big Business before the average american. That's the way it has always been (or really since the early 1900's).

    The Gov't protects wealth from getting out to the lower 1% in my opinion.

    The Gov't will bail out someone like Fannie but not the average americans who are losing their homes.

    And why do you ask? Because they consider it the average american's own fault for losing their homes.

    There's not much you can do when the prices for EVERYTHING skyrockets but your still making the same wages.

    If you start at 10 for example and the prices start at 5.

    The prices get jacked up to 15, however your still making 10.

    You can't do it, you can't make enough money to survive or support your family. That's what happening to the middle and lower class.
     
  6. Red Dawn
    Offline

    Red Dawn Senior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2008
    Messages:
    3,224
    Thanks Received:
    456
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Liberal Socialist Paradise
    Ratings:
    +456

    This is self evident.

    Isn't it amazing how quickly and efficiently the government can act, when capital and wealth are at stake? Fannie Mae is a great example. How about that invesment bank, Bear and Stearns? The government acted so quickly to take control of that situation, that they were actually working on a Sunday night to make it happen. And within hours, the situation was under control.

    But, God forbid soliders need body armour, veterans need health benefits, or children need health insurance. That shit takes years do accomplish, and Cons have to be dragged kicking and screaming the whole way.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  7. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    I think it's personally pathetic how our soldiers families have to go to pawn shops to get proper body armor.

    How families have to kick and fight for years to just get the insurance they deserve.

    How our veterans are treated like shit, and nothing is really done for them. (1/4 of the people who are homeless are veterans too. Only goes to show how well we really treat them.)

    As I said before, it's all the Gov't doing by protecting Big Business first and putting Big Business before the average American. They been doing it for years, but now they're just cocky about it.

    Don't even get me started on when it comes to PTSD and current troops/veterans though. Unless you want a long but logical rant.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  8. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    Perhaps it's wise to protect the money of the people who finance America.
     
  9. Modbert
    Offline

    Modbert Daydream Believer Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2008
    Messages:
    33,178
    Thanks Received:
    2,957
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +2,962
    I agree that the money of people who finance America should be protected to a extent because otherwise much would be at risk.

    However, with some companies it's the people in charge fault for messing things up. Sometimes even purposely.

    I.E: Enron

    However, when you ignore the American middle class, the American working class, the lower class,etc but only focus on upper America is where I have a problem.

    The way our Veterans and the Middle Class get treated in this country today is pathetic.

    If anyone would like, I'm willing to post my letter that I had written to my state senator; Jack Reed on soldiers and PTSD.

    I'm sure many of you know him as the man who accompanied Barack Obama and Chuck Hagel when they all visited Iraq and Afghanistan.

    He is in my opinion, a great man.
     
    Last edited: Sep 8, 2008
  10. Care4all
    Offline

    Care4all Warrior Princess Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2007
    Messages:
    32,772
    Thanks Received:
    6,623
    Trophy Points:
    1,170
    Location:
    Maine
    Ratings:
    +11,098
    the stockholders????
     

Share This Page