Interesting Tidbit On Student Loan Forgiveness

[Flash]

They were tricked into 6 figure loans as children. I know conservatives celebrate that as powerful colleges that behave as corporations squeezing the life out of a bunch of suckers, but the rest of us prefer there to be less misery in the world.

You dumb Moon Bat.

These worthless assholes get loans for degrees that ain't worth shit and then complain that they have to pay the money back. Typical Moon Bat entitlement mentality.

Nobody is tricked into anything. If they are so stupid as to get a degree in something that they can't make enough money pay back the loan then it is their own damn fault.

Of course Potatohead's massive inflation, higher interest rates, dismal economic growth and decreased family income makes it difficult for anybody to have enough family income to pay for anything, doesn't it?

 

[Red Front]

Yes, and we HAVE made the cost of education affordable:

1) Do your first two years at community college. If you’re from the lower end of the income scale, it will be free to you.

2) Maintain a B average, and transfer to a 4-year school with an academic transfer scholarship. (If you can’t get a B average in CC, then you aren’t college material and instead go for vocational training.)

3) Your final two years can be at State U, at a “sticker price” of around $25,000 per year. Your academic scholarship will reduce that by half to third - bringing the annual cost down to between $12,500 and $16,000. Let’s average and say $14,000, or $28,000 for the two years.

Now let’s subtract out the earnings from jobs, PT during school and FT during summer and winter breaks. One should be able to earn close several thousand dollars per year, dropping your per-year cost to $10,000 - or $20,000 total.

Now, $20,000 is a small investment to make in one’s own future, considering that college graduates, on average, earn $1 million more over their lifetimes than a high school grad.

The investment of the youth and the future of our country is in dedicating all of their time and energy to studying. That's all they should worry about in college or in vocational school. Studying. Hitting the books HARD.

If they get a job because they need to support themselves, while they're studying, the last thing they need is to also have to pay tuition fees and worry about scholarships (they already have a scholarship from the society that they're going to serve after they get their degrees or trade). Our country has more than enough wealth to provide our citizens with the best education, tuition-free.

With few exceptions, the children of the wealthy, don't need to get a 9 to 5 to support themselves while they're studying, to avoid starving to death or going homeless. Their rich daddy and mommy tells them "honey, just focus on your studies". Education is vital to our country's survival and success, hence it should be provided tuition-free at all public schools. Preschool to Ph.D. They will pay back society, by fully committing themselves to their profession, whatever that might be. The ROI, of investing in the education of our children is 1000-fold. It's an investment that society must ensure. It should not be left to a market or a person's ability to pay, sell their labor power or convince someone to grant them a scholarship.

More, your claim that people should score a B to benefit from a college education is false. If a person chooses to go to college rather than to a vocational school, and they don't have a higher-than-average IQ or make a B average, that doesn't mean that they and their community can't benefit from that college education. They can still become a productive member of society without having a high IQ or scoring above-average grades in college. If they try college and don't succeed, they can go to a vocational school. College refines people, it expands cognition, a person's ability to conduct their own research, and develop a more sophisticated perspective of reality. It opens the mind, hence it's good for everyone.

We're shameless in admitting that our children will have access to plenty of resources to help them succeed in life, while we convey our austere plan for "success" to the working class (those other people).

"Listen, all of you working-class people, I know my children won't have to do this, but here is a plan for you to have your children get themselves up by their bootstraps and work themselves 7 to 5 or maybe 9 to 7 into a college degree or trade. Here it is:

You sleep maybe five hours daily at the most, preferably four hours if you can, and you ride the train and a bus to work six days a week, then at night you hop on the bus and that takes you back to the train and then you ride the train to night college. I suggest you drink some RED BULL, to keep you "energetic" and attentive in class.

After school at 10:15 pm, you run back to the train (real fast, like Tom Cruise):

​

...and ride it to the bus stop. Then you ride the bus back home, arriving at around 11:25 pm. You take a shower, and by 12 midnight you're ready to hit the sack. You don't really have to study, due to all of the RED BULL you're drinking. You wake up at 5 am and repeat, wax on and wax off, six days weekly for four years and you'll have a degree. "

​

That's what you have to do young lady. I know you're tired, but if you want an education, you're going to have to work hard (REAL HARD - like IRON WOMAN). Walmart isn't paying you a living wage, and you're on food stamps, but just toughen up girl.


The wealthy advisor to the working class turns around to her kids....

" Son just focus on your studies, get good grades, and rich mommy will take care of your expenses. It's those working-class people that should, work it out for themselves. That's life. Survival of the fittest, but you're lucky. Just study and I'll take care of the rest. Once you graduate, I'll even help you get established in society, and get a good job. You'll start your new career with plenty of support from your wealthy, well-connected family and Jewish community".

 

[Red Front]

Why are you assuming that I have wealthy children, or even any children at all? I am speaking from an ideological viewpoint: that a person who earns and accumulates money can do with it what he wants.

And P.S. None of this negates the safety net. The wealthy person pays taxes toward that, as well.

Sure, everyone pays taxes and yes we must have a robust social infrastructure of services, benefits, and laws that mitigate the inequality and injustices of living under a capitalist-run system of human exploitation.

 

[LeftofLeft]

"either there is too little job offerings or the jobs don't pay shit."

You can thank Republican, conservative shitheads for that.

How so? Inflation, higher taxes, increased regulations and higher energy costs provide what incentives for companies to expand or new businesses to open up. How do Republicans cause this?

 

[Lisa558]

Sure, everyone pays taxes and yes we must have a robust social infrastructure of services, benefits, and laws that mitigate the inequality and injustices of living under a capitalist-run system of human exploitation.

What you call “human exploitation” is what I call a system by which motivated, capable people can train for careers and become a productive, valuable, and well-compensated part of a business. From that, they can buy homes, cars, eat out, go to the theater, and go on great vacations, and save for a comfortable retirement - even if they were born into poverty.

It’s a great system that encourages and rewards initiative, ability, discipline, and smart choices in life.

 

[Red Front]

What you call “human exploitation” is what I call a system by which motivated, capable people can train for careers and become a productive, valuable, and well-compensated part of a business. From that, they can buy homes, cars, eat out, go to the theater, and go on great vacations, and save for a comfortable retirement - even if they were born into poverty.

It’s a great system that encourages and rewards initiative, ability, discipline, and smart choices in life.

What you call “human exploitation” is what I call a system by which motivated, capable people can train for careers and become a productive, valuable, and well-compensated part of a business.

It's an authoritarian system of one socioeconomic class, exploiting and ruling over another. Those who are of the wealthy owner-capitalist class, by default, pay their workers less than what they produce and are constantly looking for ways to reduce overhead or the cost of doing business at the expense of their employees ( reducing wages, benefits. etc). Due to the contradictions of capitalism, it practically always leads to cronyism. An effort by capitalists to control the state through their money, passing laws that serve their vested interests, often at the expense of the public (which is mostly comprised of the working class). Albert Einstein whose name epitomizes genius wrote:

"Private capital tends to become concentrated in few hands… The result of these developments is an oligarchy of private capital the enormous power of which cannot be effectively checked even by a democratically organized political society. This is true since the members of legislative bodies are selected by political parties, largely financed or otherwise influenced by private capitalists who, for all practical purposes, separate the electorate from the legislature. The consequence is that the representatives of the people do not in fact sufficiently protect the interests of the underprivileged sections of the population. Moreover, under existing conditions, private capitalists inevitably control, directly or indirectly, the main sources of information (press, radio, education). It is thus extremely difficult, and indeed in most cases quite impossible, for the individual citizen to come to objective conclusions and to make intelligent use of his political rights." (Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein)

"The economic anarchy of capitalist society, as it exists today, is, in my opinion, the real source of the evil... Production is carried on for profit, not for use. There is no provision that all those able and willing to work will always be in a position to find employment; an 'army of unemployed' almost always exists." (Why Socialism? by Albert Einstein)

In his essay "Why Socialism?" published in the first issue of the Monthly Review (May 1949

http://redandgreen.org/pete/einstein.pdf

Capitalism leads to gross wealth inequality, stagnant wages, cuts in needed benefits, higher living costs, the privatization of national infrastructure, poor access to healthcare and education, less democracy, and social stability. The government becomes primarily a state tool for the rich at the cost of the public.

If capitalism only functions for or is exemplified as a system of production for people with a high degree of commitment, motivation, and capacity (bright people) to train for white-collar "lucrative careers", working for a capitalist-run enterprise, it will fail to meet the needs of society. We now live in a country where 60% of people live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford an emergency of $400. Most workers are blue-collar (80% of the working class) and are overworked, underpaid, and a paycheck or two away from skidrow.

From that, they can buy homes, cars, eat out, go to the theater, and go on great vacations, and save for a comfortable retirement - even if they were born into poverty.

Most people have jobs, and careers are only reserved for a unique, privileged few, with the intelligence, discipline, and talent to acquire and sustain them. Most people with successful, high-paying careers, had a good upbringing and access to plenty of resources to help them along the way. Housing, healthcare, education, and a decent life shouldn't be just for those who have high-paying careers. That's an unsustainable, inadequate capitalist system that needs plenty of assistance from the government to avoid social unrest and collapse.

A significant % of Walmart employees are on public assistance. They work for a company that makes tens of billions of dollars a year in profits and yet its employees can't even buy the bare necessities of life without government assistance.

It’s a great system that encourages and rewards initiative, ability, discipline, and smart choices in life.

The working class is full of initiative, skill, discipline, and people who made and continue to make smart choices, and it's often the case that capitalists still refuse to pay good wages and meet the needs of their workers.

During the covid pandemic, the jobs that are often considered "unsavory", or of low social status, were the most important ones. Sanitation, janitorial staff disinfecting public spaces, food delivery..etc. Under capitalism, the "bling bling", high-paying careers are praised and supposedly those who have them are better than everyone else because they're supposedly the hardest working, most ethical, and refined people, but that's simply not the case. They're not the most important people in society.

This situation is endemic to capitalism and this was admitted by the father of capitalism himself, Adam Smith, when he wrote:

What are the common wages of labor, depends everywhere upon the contract usually made between those two parties, whose interests are by no means the same. The workmen (employees) desire to get as much, and the masters (capitalists) to give as little as possible. The former are disposed to combine (unionize/labor unions) in order to raise, the latter in order to lower the wages of labor.

It is not, however, difficult to foresee which of the two parties must, upon all ordinary occasions, have the advantage in the dispute, and force the other into a compliance with their terms. The masters, being fewer in number, can combine (unions for the wealthy elites: super-PACs, lobbying, chambers of commerce, guilds, industry associations) much more easily; and the law, besides, authorizes, or at least does not prohibit their combinations (the organizing of the rich and powerful), while it prohibits those of the workmen. (Wealth Of Nations - Emphasis Mine)

Capitalism is better than chattel slavery and feudalism, but it's far from the pretty picture you've painted. In the not-too-distant future, as advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to develop, society will be forced by necessity to adopt a non-profit system of production a.k.a. socialism.

 

[Red Front]

How so? Inflation, higher taxes, increased regulations and higher energy costs provide what incentives for companies to expand or new businesses to open up. How do Republicans cause this?

Inflation can easily be controlled by the government, because it's often due to capitalists raising prices to capitalize on a crisis, despite still running a profitable, sustainable business. The government intervenes and stops the cascading wave of higher prices across the market, with its authority:

Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has happened several times throughout our nation's history. Government intervening to stop inflation and to bail out capitalists from their bad business decisions, to avoid a catastrophic collapse of our economy.

Higher taxes for the wealthy was one of the emblematic features of the golden age of our economy, starting in the 1930s, under FDR's New Deal, all the way to the late 1970s. In the 1950s and 60s, 1/3rd of the American workforce was unionized, and one breadwinner earning a blue-collar wage could provide for the whole family. The highest-paid CEOs were making 20 times that of the average worker in their companies, whereas today the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes 400 times the average worker.

My maternal grandfather migrated here from Cuba in 1961 with his wife and children, without a dime in his pocket. He got a job with Bertram Yachts, in Miami, Florida, spraying wooden boat hull molds with fiberglass. He was the sole provider in the family and by 1965, he saved enough money to buy a house, with a large backyard and several mango and aguacate trees, 100% cash, without a bank loan. Try doing that now with a blue-collar wage, starting from scratch in just four years, while supporting your spouse and two kids.

In the 1980s, supply-side, trickle-down economics gutted the working class and stripped America of its manufacturing base. Labor unions were decimated by Reagan's policies:

What the working class has been left with is stagnant wages, few benefits if any, longer hours, higher living costs, and limited if not zero access to affordable healthcare and education. The Republicans have no problem with the rich getting their huge piece of the pie and leaving crumbs for everyone else.

​

 

[LeftofLeft]

Inflation can easily be controlled by the government, because it's often due to capitalists raising prices to capitalize on a crisis, despite still running a profitable, sustainable business. The government intervenes and stops the cascading wave of higher prices across the market, with its authority:

Economic Stabilization Act of 1970 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

This has happened several times throughout our nation's history. Government intervening to stop inflation and to bail out capitalists from their bad business decisions, to avoid a catastrophic collapse of our economy.

View attachment 791201​

Higher taxes for the wealthy was one of the emblematic features of the golden age of our economy, starting in the 1930s, under FDR's New Deal, all the way to the late 1970s. In the 1950s and 60s, 1/3rd of the American workforce was unionized, and one breadwinner earning a blue-collar wage could provide for the whole family. The highest-paid CEOs were making 20 times that of the average worker in their companies, whereas today the average CEO of a Fortune 500 company makes 400 times the average worker.

My maternal grandfather migrated here from Cuba in 1961 with his wife and children, without a dime in his pocket. He got a job with Bertram Yachts, in Miami, Florida, spraying wooden boat hull molds with fiberglass. He was the sole provider in the family and by 1965, he saved enough money to buy a house, with a large backyard and several mango and aguacate trees, 100% cash, without a bank loan. Try doing that now with a blue-collar wage, starting from scratch in just four years, while supporting your spouse and two kids.

In the 1980s, supply-side, trickle-down economics gutted the working class and stripped America of its manufacturing base. Labor unions were decimated by Reagan's policies:

View attachment 791199
View attachment 791200

View attachment 791202​

What the working class has been left with is stagnant wages, few benefits if any, longer hours, higher living costs, and limited if not zero access to affordable healthcare and education. The Republicans have no problem with the rich getting their huge piece of the pie and leaving crumbs for everyone else.

​

So, we should be more like Cuba, the country your grandfather left? How is that working out for Cubans? When the Government raises taxes and regulations on companies, why should companies keep hiring, raise wages and NOT raise prices?

 

[Red Front]

So, we should be more like Cuba, the country your grandfather left? How is that working out for Cubans? When the Government raises taxes and regulations on companies, why should companies keep hiring, raise wages and NOT raise prices?

Sir, let's think about this...

Cuba is an Island, that used to essentially be an American colony. It's only 90 miles south of Florida, so it's essentially in the shadow of a capitalist empire. About 80% of the country was in abject poverty, without access to healthcare or an education, before the socialist revolution. It was an American puppet-state, ruled by a general and when Fidel Castro took power, making Cuba a self-ruled, sovereign country, it was invaded by American-trained pro-capitalist Cuban forces and embargoed economically. The defenders of capitalism don't have the ideological luxury of appealing to the poor conditions of a socialist country, while America is sanctioning it. Marco Rubio a Senator from Florida was threatening to invade Cuba not that long ago. So no I don't suggest we become like Cuba.

However, Germany has been led for the last decade or so, by the German Socialist Party. Spain also is led by its Socialist Party. Portugal is led by a coalition of its Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Green Party. These Western European countries that are led by socialists aren't being sanctioned by the United States, because they're "hush-hush" about their socialism. They don't outwardly identify themselves as having Marxist leadership or a socialist economy, hence the big, scary, capitalist gorilla leaves them alone. The US doesn't have a beef with socialist countries that don't identify themselves as socialist, even if they're led by socialists.

Now, should we dismiss capitalism on the grounds that so many countries in the world that have a capitalist-run economy are dirt poor? Most nations in the third world, aren't socialist, they're led and exploited by capitalists. Countries like Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico the Narco state, Panama, Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria, Kenya, Thailand..etc. Countries that are dirt poor, are capitalist. Saudi Arabia chops people's heads off for crimes like being in possession of an ounce of Marijuana. So just because you're a defender and lover of capitalism, that doesn't imply that you're in favor of chopping people's heads off with a sword, for being in possession of some weed.

Sure socialists aren't perfect and they've committed crimes, but to suggest that socialism amounts to everything that is bad and we should ignore whatever is good about it, is like me accusing you of being in favor of chopping people's heads off because Saudi Arabia, a capitalist country, chops people's heads off. You can be pro-capitalism without being pro-Saudi Arabia or chopping people's heads off. I can be for socialism without being for any particular socialist country. I can disagree with a socialist country or a country that claims to be socialist while being socialist.

Whoever resorts to these types of arguments against socialism, are committing a logical fallacy.

 

[Lisa558]

Sure, everyone pays taxes and yes we must have a robust social infrastructure of services, benefits, and laws that mitigate the inequality and injustices of living under a capitalist-run system of human exploitation.

Well, that’s the opinion of a communist.

Capitalism is great in that in incentivizes people to learn valuable skills and contribute to the advancement of society by rewarding them with a good income - and allowing the motivated, capable, and disciplined to rise from abject poverty to a life of affluence.

I know…because I saw it in my own family.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Sir, let's think about this...

Cuba is an Island, that used to essentially be an American colony. It's only 90 miles south of Florida, so it's essentially in the shadow of a capitalist empire. About 80% of the country was in abject poverty, without access to healthcare or an education, before the socialist revolution. It was an American puppet-state, ruled by a general and when Fidel Castro took power, making Cuba a self-ruled, sovereign country, it was invaded by American-trained pro-capitalist Cuban forces and embargoed economically. The defenders of capitalism don't have the ideological luxury of appealing to the poor conditions of a socialist country, while America is sanctioning it. Marco Rubio a Senator from Florida was threatening to invade Cuba not that long ago. So no I don't suggest we become like Cuba.

However, Germany has been led for the last decade or so, by the German Socialist Party. Spain also is led by its Socialist Party. Portugal is led by a coalition of its Socialist Party, Communist Party, and the Green Party. These Western European countries that are led by socialists aren't being sanctioned by the United States, because they're "hush-hush" about their socialism. They don't outwardly identify themselves as having Marxist leadership or a socialist economy, hence the big, scary, capitalist gorilla leaves them alone. The US doesn't have a beef with socialist countries that don't identify themselves as socialist, even if they're led by socialists.

Now, should we dismiss capitalism on the grounds that so many countries in the world that have a capitalist-run economy are dirt poor? Most nations in the third world, aren't socialist, they're led and exploited by capitalists. Countries like Haiti, El Salvador, Guatemala, Mexico the Narco state, Panama, Uganda, Liberia, Nigeria, Kenya, Thailand..etc. Countries that are dirt poor, are capitalist. Saudi Arabia chops people's heads off for crimes like being in possession of an ounce of Marijuana. So just because you're a defender and lover of capitalism, that doesn't imply that you're in favor of chopping people's heads off with a sword, for being in possession of some weed.

Sure socialists aren't perfect and they've committed crimes, but to suggest that socialism amounts to everything that is bad and we should ignore whatever is good about it, is like me accusing you of being in favor of chopping people's heads off because Saudi Arabia, a capitalist country, chops people's heads off. You can be pro-capitalism without being pro-Saudi Arabia or chopping people's heads off. I can be for socialism without being for any particular socialist country. I can disagree with a socialist country or a country that claims to be socialist while being socialist.

Whoever resorts to these types of arguments against socialism, are committing a logical fallacy.

Predictably, you blamed America for Cuba’s problems. I notice your grandfather did not move to a more socialist country when he left Cuba. Did you? America’s Capitalist economy for all of its flaws that are exemplified by people like yourself, still provides the greatest economic opportunity for individual people better than any other country..

Then, you shifted to Socialism argument. I would argue that there exists elements of Socialism in modern-day America such as social security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare…. AND, as a Capitalist, these are good things. But, I stand firm against moving further across the spectrum towards Socialism. Why? First and foremost Capitalism pays for supports Socialism. Socialism cannot support Capitalism. A second reason I don’t support a government being more Socialist vs. Capitalist is because it eliminates a middle class and locks in a true 1 percent with no economic mobility.

 

[Red Front]

Well, that’s the opinion of a communist.

Capitalism is great in that in incentivizes people to learn valuable skills and contribute to the advancement of society by rewarding them with a good income - and allowing the motivated, capable, and disciplined to rise from abject poverty to a life of affluence.

I know…because I saw it in my own family.

In response to this:

Sure, everyone pays taxes and yes we must have a robust social infrastructure of services, benefits, and laws that mitigate the inequality and injustices of living under a capitalist-run system of human exploitation.

You said this:

Well, that’s the opinion of a communist.

No mam. that's not just the opinion of a fringe communist (even further left and "fringier" than a socialist), that's also the opinion of your Jewish God, who you call Hashem/YHWH:

Isa 58:5-11 Is it such a fast that I have chosen? a day for a man to afflict his soul? is it to bow down his head as a bulrush, and to spread sackcloth and ashes under him? wilt thou call this a fast, and an acceptable day to the LORD? (6) Is not this the fast that I have chosen? to loose the bands of wickedness, to undo the heavy burdens, and to let the oppressed go free, and that ye break every yoke? (7) Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, and that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? when thou seest the naked, that thou cover him; and that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh? (8) Then shall thy light break forth as the morning, and thine health shall spring forth speedily: and thy righteousness shall go before thee; the glory of the LORD shall be thy rereward. (9) Then shalt thou call, and the LORD shall answer; thou shalt cry, and he shall say, Here I am. If thou take away from the midst of thee the yoke, the putting forth of the finger, and speaking vanity; (10) And if thou draw out thy soul to the hungry, and satisfy the afflicted soul; then shall thy light rise in obscurity, and thy darkness be as the noonday: (11) And the LORD shall guide thee continually, and satisfy thy soul in drought, and make fat thy bones: and thou shalt be like a watered garden, and like a spring of water, whose waters fail not.

Lisa doesn't want to let the homeless into her house and she's not alone. Most people, including myself, don't want a bunch of homeless people, sleeping in our living room, but hey we have this "social apparatus", we call a "government", that has the resources and infrastructure to house the homeless. The state is a social institution and management tool, that handles our large-scale civil projects and affairs that we can't as individuals or as a small community.

Your violating Torah, when you're cold and indifferent to the poor (if not cynical and sociopathic). Maybe you don't care what the God of the bible has to say on the issue, because you're not a religious Jew, but nonetheless, before I show how even big-money capitalists and capitalist economists agree with my opinion, I just wanted to inform you that the Jewish God, in his Torah, orders his people, to take care of the disenfranchised and poor. That was just one passage of MANY in the Hebrew bible, that agrees with my extreme-left, fringe communist opinion.

The God of the Jewish people is the ULTIMATE SOCIAL JUSTICE WARRIOR. He recognizes that there must be a social system in place that mitigates the injustice of a broken and corrupt world, or people suffer unnecessarily.

Tikkun Olam - repairing the world is a central tenet of Judaism.

Tikkun olam - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Who else agrees with me besides God? Smart capitalists.

​

Even Milton Friedman, one of the icons and intellectual giants of 20th century capitalism, believed capitalism needs the government to hand the poor some money, or capitalism creates inequality, which inevitably leads to social unrest and the end of capitalism (the pitchforks come out and the wealthy lose all of their goodies). He understood this and despite his disdain for government and its social programs, he had to concede that something has to be done for the underprivileged to avoid serious problems in his beloved "free-market" (the magical "invisible hand" of the free-market needs a government handout):

​

Here is another well-known and respected capitalist economist that agrees that capitalism's flaws, need to be mitigated by the government:

​

I'm not for UBI or a direct government monetary handout to the poor, under this capitalist economy. That doesn't help much. I'm for building the national infrastructure that facilitates opportunities for everyone (even capitalists), which of course includes a robust social safety net (healthcare, education, legal protections for labor unions, basic housing for the homeless..etc) that allows the working class (those who have to rent their lives daily to a capitalist master) to be productive and live a decent life under capitalism. Without that mitigative component, capitalism fails miserably to meet the needs of society, leading to social unrest and revolutions.

Right-wing capitalist extremists refuse to recognize the need for this government-based, mitigative element and become the worst enemies of capitalism. We the communists, aren't the worst enemies of capitalism, you are with your cynical indifference towards the poor and working class in general. You catalyze and ensure the quick, explosive transition from capitalism to socialism even more effectively and quicker than communists like me. You're actually working for communism, even though you don't know it. Ironic isn't it?


Capitalism is great in that in incentivizes people to learn valuable skills and contribute to the advancement of society and allowing the motivated, capable, and disciplined to rise from abject poverty to a life of affluence. by rewarding them with a good income - ...

So did the whip of the slave master. There are better ways to incentivize people to learn valuable skills and contribute to the evolution of humanity, besides a system defined by the exploitation of one socioeconomic class over another (you living the "good life" doesn't have to be at the expense of other people's dignity and lives).

Capitalism in its final form, becomes extremely destructive, curtailing human progress and development due to its productive activities being detached from meeting human needs and rather emphasizing human greed and hubris. We're now on the brink of fighting WW3 with Russia because our government is under the heel of capitalist war profiteers, a.k.a. The Military Industrial Complex.

Living in a universe that wants to kill us, is a great incentive to figure out how that universe functions and develop the skills and technology to control it. This process of human development has existed for tens of thousands of years, way before capitalism. As social beings we once organized our labor communally, applying what Marx called "primitive communism":

​

...and in the future, when advanced technology (autonomous machines and vehicles, artificial intelligence, quantum computing, nanotechnology, atomic precision manufacturing..etc) permits, we will once again organize production as a community without socioeconomic classes or even the need for money, in a non-profit system of what Marx and Engels defined as "High-Communism" (high-tech communism).

Communism is inevitable due to the advancement of automation and artificial intelligence. Capitalism and money, become superfluous and even absurd when advanced technology replaces wage-labor/paying consumers. Markets are replaced with a logistical chain of automated production, involving, material extraction, processing, manufacturing, storage, and distribution.


I know…because I saw it in my own family.

The fact that you experienced that in your life and saw it manifest in your family, doesn't address the many problems with capitalism and its negative effects on society. Your personal experience and what exactly are the factors that led to that affluent condition, aren't necessarily as apparent as you suppose. Did you win the genetic lottery? Are you a person of above-average intelligence? Did you have a good upbringing? Are you part of a Jewish community where people help each other? Were you lucky (did you get some good breaks)? Did you have a unique knack for identifying opportunities and the ability to capitalize on them? Where did you live? Did the environment help you? Were you ruthless and ate people for breakfast?

There are many components and corollaries, peripheral elements, that you don't even know that allow you to be where you are today financially and otherwise. It's not necessarily because you're as "majestic" and righteous as you think you are.

To assume that capitalism is good for everybody because it was good for you and your family is a logical fallacy. The facts are that capitalism is an economic system based on the exploitation of human labor, by a small parasitical class of privileged elites, for the purpose of enriching themselves at the great expense of the public-at-large. That's unethical and unsustainable. Capitalism creates one boom-and-bust crisis after another, requiring the intervention of government, with its public bailout money, to avoid the collapse of the economy and rescue capitalists from their bad business decisions.

 

[Red Front]

Predictably, you blamed America for Cuba’s problems. I notice your grandfather did not move to a more socialist country when he left Cuba. Did you? America’s Capitalist economy for all of its flaws that are exemplified by people like yourself, still provides the greatest economic opportunity for individual people better than any other country..

Then, you shifted to Socialism argument. I would argue that there exists elements of Socialism in modern-day America such as social security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare…. AND, as a Capitalist, these are good things. But, I stand firm against moving further across the spectrum towards Socialism. Why? First and foremost Capitalism pays for supports Socialism. Socialism cannot support Capitalism. A second reason I don’t support a government being more Socialist vs. Capitalist is because it eliminates a middle class and locks in a true 1 percent with no economic mobility.

Predictably, you blamed America for Cuba’s problems.

No, not necessarily. Your statement is a straw man and an exaggeration of what I'm actually saying. Cuba's problems are significantly attributed to being in the shadow of a powerful, capitalist empire, namely the USA, but it's not it's only source of suffering. A considerable amount of blame is also due to Cuba's handling of the sanctions and refusal to take the steps to overcome it. I don't agree with much of what the Cuban government does, but I do recognize the role US economic sanctions have in Cuba's deplorable state. In other words, I recognize reality for what it is and I try to be as honest as possible, despite of my personal biases and peccadillos. Socialists aren't perfect and you already know that. No one is.

I notice your grandfather did not move to a more socialist country when he left Cuba. Did you? America’s Capitalist economy for all of its flaws that are exemplified by people like yourself

My mother's family migrated to Spain first, in 1959, because my grandparents had close family in Spain. Most of my mother's family is in Spain, which in the 1960s had a fascist-socialist government, under Franco. Italian and Spanish fascism, unlike German fascism, is very socialistic.

​

The so-called "right-wing" in Western Europe is unlike the conservative right wing in the United States. In the US the right-wing is completely brainwashed by capitalists and serves the vested interests of the wealthy elites at its own peril and expense. American right-wingers are stupid, and I don't direct that pejorative statement at you personally, but I speak in general. It's a stupid type of conservatism.

What the American right fails to grasp is that it can be socially conservative (anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, even racist..etc) and at the same time be 100% socialist. You don't have to be a liberal or have a leftist social ethic, to be a socialist. You can be a social conservative and non-Marxist and be a socialist. My grandfather, grandmother, my mother, and her sister, moved to Miami, Florida in 1961, when the US economy was by today's standard very "leftist" and socialistic.

My grandfather wasn't fleeing socialism's supposedly "bad economy", but leaving due to political reasons. My mother was working for the CIA at the age of 13, with her friends, plastering pro-capitalist, American propaganda throughout Havana. I believe I already mentioned that. My grandfather was also a member of Batista's police forces.

America was completely different in that era, with a powerful and affluent working class (what capitalists call the "middle-class"), a robust manufacturing base, and strong labor unions (1/3rd of the American labor force was unionized), the American Dream was accessible to practically everyone.

After WW2 the US became the manufacturing hub of the world, exporting the highest quality, most in-demand products to Europe, Japan, and other countries. The American workforce was the world's "aristocracy of labor", the highest paid, with the most benefits. It was a completely different situation economically than it is today in 2023. The highest tax rate for the rich was 90% and the CEOs with the largest salaries didn't exceed 20 times the income of the average worker in their companies. Today the tax rate for the rich is much less than 90% and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make 400 times the average worker. We currently live in another America.


, still provides the greatest economic opportunity for individual people better than any other country..

We the American working class, are at the bottom of the barrel now socially and economically, compared to where we were in the 1950s and 60s. Workers in Western Europe pity us. They think we're stupid for handing all of the pie to the wealthy at our expense. All we have now are crumbs, compared to workers in the past.

Then, you shifted to Socialism argument. I would argue that there exists elements of Socialism in modern-day America such as social security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare…. AND, as a Capitalist, these are good things.


Well, that's good that you're smart enough to recognize that because without at least a little bit of socialism, there's no capitalism. Unfortunately, too many Republicans and some Democrats as well don't even want a little socialism mixed in with capitalism, and that stupid attitude, leads to gross inequality, a deteriorating infrastructure, and an economy in shambles.

​

But, I stand firm against moving further across the spectrum towards Socialism.

You might be against moving further to the left on the economic spectrum, but as automation technology and artificial intelligence continue to advance, none of us, including you, will have much of a choice. By necessity, you'll eventually "get it", the light bulb will go off in your head and you'll understand why socialism is inevitable, provided we continue progressing technologically. Going back technologically isn't an option. That's "devolution" and regressive.

​

We can allow ourselves to fall into techno-feudalism, but that's a dystopic nightmare. Democratic socialism, with a non-profit mode of production, provided its accompanied by advanced automation, is the clear answer to the quandary of extreme productive efficiency.


Why? First and foremost Capitalism pays for supports Socialism.

Actually, the opposite is true. Socialism supports capitalism, allowing it to survive the "business cycle". Every boom and bust recession is bailed out with public funds or "socialism". Capitalism can't survive without constant government intervention.

Socialism cannot support Capitalism.

It has been doing it for 200 years.


A second reason I don’t support a government being more Socialist vs. Capitalist is because it eliminates a middle class and locks in a true 1 percent with no economic mobility.

The reverse is true. When the government is controlled by capitalists, they eviscerate the middle-class/working class. They gut it like a fish, creating gross inequality, scarcity of resources, a crumbling infrastructure, and start major wars. That's what occurs when capitalists are in control of the government. Capitalism always leads to a concentration of wealth and power at the top, undermining democracy and the livelihoods and standard of living of the working class. It destroys what you call the "middle class".

 

[LeftofLeft]

Predictably, you blamed America for Cuba’s problems.

No, not necessarily. Your statement is a straw man and an exaggeration of what I'm actually saying. Cuba's problems are significantly attributed to being in the shadow of a powerful, capitalist empire, namely the USA, but it's not it's only source of suffering. A considerable amount of blame is also due to Cuba's handling of the sanctions and refusal to take the steps to overcome it. I don't agree with much of what the Cuban government does, but I do recognize the role US economic sanctions have in Cuba's deplorable state. In other words, I recognize reality for what it is and I try to be as honest as possible, despite of my personal biases and peccadillos. Socialists aren't perfect and you already know that. No one is.

I notice your grandfather did not move to a more socialist country when he left Cuba. Did you? America’s Capitalist economy for all of its flaws that are exemplified by people like yourself

My mother's family migrated to Spain first, in 1959, because my grandparents had close family in Spain. Most of my mother's family is in Spain, which in the 1960s had a fascist-socialist government, under Franco. Italian and Spanish fascism, unlike German fascism, is very socialistic.

​

The so-called "right-wing" in Western Europe is unlike the conservative right wing in the United States. In the US the right-wing is completely brainwashed by capitalists and serves the vested interests of the wealthy elites at its own peril and expense. American right-wingers are stupid, and I don't direct that pejorative statement at you personally, but I speak in general. It's a stupid type of conservatism.

What the American right fails to grasp is that it can be socially conservative (anti-abortion, anti-LGBTQ, even racist..etc) and at the same time be 100% socialist. You don't have to be a liberal or have a leftist social ethic, to be a socialist. You can be a social conservative and non-Marxist and be a socialist. My grandfather, grandmother, my mother, and her sister, moved to Miami, Florida in 1961, when the US economy was by today's standard very "leftist" and socialistic.

My grandfather wasn't fleeing socialism's supposedly "bad economy", but leaving due to political reasons. My mother was working for the CIA at the age of 13, with her friends, plastering pro-capitalist, American propaganda throughout Havana. I believe I already mentioned that. My grandfather was also a member of Batista's police forces.

America was completely different in that era, with a powerful and affluent working class (what capitalists call the "middle-class"), a robust manufacturing base, and strong labor unions (1/3rd of the American labor force was unionized), the American Dream was accessible to practically everyone.

After WW2 the US became the manufacturing hub of the world, exporting the highest quality, most in-demand products to Europe, Japan, and other countries. The American workforce was the world's "aristocracy of labor", the highest paid, with the most benefits. It was a completely different situation economically than it is today in 2023. The highest tax rate for the rich was 90% and the CEOs with the largest salaries didn't exceed 20 times the income of the average worker in their companies. Today the tax rate for the rich is much less than 90% and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies make 400 times the average worker. We currently live in another America.


, still provides the greatest economic opportunity for individual people better than any other country..

We're at the bottom of the barrel now economically, compared to where we were in the 1950s and 60s. Workers in Western Europe pity us.

Then, you shifted to Socialism argument. I would argue that there exists elements of Socialism in modern-day America such as social security, Medicare, unemployment, welfare…. AND, as a Capitalist, these are good things.


Well, that's good that you're smart enough to recognize that because without at least a little bit of socialism, there's no capitalism. Unfortunately, too many Republicans and some Democrats as well don't even want a little socialism mixed in with capitalism, and that stupid attitude, leads to gross inequality, a deteriorating infrastructure, and an economy in shambles.

​

But, I stand firm against moving further across the spectrum towards Socialism.

You might be against moving further to the left on the economic spectrum, but as automation technology and artificial intelligence continue to advance, none of us, including you, will have much of a choice. By necessity, you'll eventually "get it", the light bulb will go off in your head and you'll understand why socialism is inevitable, provided we continue progressing technologically. Going back technologically isn't an option. That's "devolution" and regressive.

​

We can allow ourselves to fall into techno-feudalism, but that's a dystopic nightmare. Democratic socialism, with a non-profit mode of production, provided its accompanied by advanced automation, is the clear answer to the quandary of extreme productive efficiency.


Why? First and foremost Capitalism pays for supports Socialism.

Actually, the opposite is true. Socialism supports capitalism, allowing it to survive the "business cycle". Every boom and bust recession is bailed out with public funds or "socialism". Capitalism can't survive without constant government intervention.

Socialism cannot support Capitalism.

It has been doing it for 200 years.


A second reason I don’t support a government being more Socialist vs. Capitalist is because it eliminates a middle class and locks in a true 1 percent with no economic mobility.

The reverse is true. When the government is controlled by capitalists, they eviscerate the middle-class/working class. They gut it like a fish, creating gross inequality, scarcity of resources, a crumbling infrastructure, and start major wars. That's what occurs when capitalists are in control of the government. Capitalism always leads to a concentration of wealth and power at the top, undermining democracy and the livelihoods and standard of living of the working class. It destroys what you call the "middle class".

Name a socialist economy with a thriving middle class as well as one that provides a solid economic opportunity? Economic opportunities is why America is a top destination for immigrants. I’ve been to a good handful of nation state capitals and seen American Embassies. Invariably, the American Embassy always has the most activity and lines of people looking to meet with American personnel so they can get into the US despite the flaws that the Left keeps highlighting.

 

[Red Front]

Name a socialist economy with a thriving middle class as well as one that provides a solid economic opportunity?

What do you mean by socialism? Socialism exists in various stages, until it ends with high communism (a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money). Socialism is a process where the means of production gradually transition into a non-profit mode of production in the hands of the working class. The public ownership of the means of production (of the facilities and machinery), is the latest stage in socialist evolution, that ends with high-communism.

Western Europe, by the standard established by right-wing, FOX NEWS, Republicans in the US, is socialist. You have all of these right-wing ideologues and media pundits in the US raving about how progressive Democrats are "socialists" because they're for universal Medicare and tuition-free education and housing for the homeless. etc. Policies that are taken for granted in Western Europe, and seen as just common sense, are considered "COMMUNIST" here in America.

So your question asking "Where is a good socialist economy?", can be answered by simply pointing to Western Europe and several other parts of the world, where government policies that are considered "COMMUNIST" by American Republicans, are normal and considered SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

Heavily industrialized, modern democracies around the world, apply socialist principles to their economies. Germany is led by the Socialist Party of Germany, and Spain by their socialist party. The socialists, along with the far-left communists and Green party in Portugal are currently in power. Ireland is moving further to the left. There is a huge move in many parts of the world to the left, economically and socially.

Why is your question a bit disingenuous? Well first, you ignored practically every point I've made to you in previous, recent posts. That suggests you're not reading anything I'm saying or you're flippantly dismissing it offhand and continue pressing forward with your misconceptions and poor fuzzy logic. You completely and conveniently ignore America's role in socialism's economic difficulties, with its brutal economic sanctions and threats of violence and actual wars against countries that openly identify as Marxist. You just pretend that's not a factor in any of the failures of the socialist effort to establish a Marxist economy.

You also ignore the fact that not all countries that apply socialist, Marxist principles identify their economies as socialist, lest they get trampled on by the big capitalist gorilla in the room, a.k.a. USA.

How long did it take the mercantile class of Western Europe to replace the kings and feudal lords of Europe? Did the European monarchies of Europe fall to the capitalist Republicans overnight? Was it just one single swoop of the sword that allowed the merchants to become the wealthy, power elites of Europe or did it take several centuries? Did the merchants become powerful industrialists before technology facilitated their rise to power in the 19th century? You need to be honest and fair with your critique of socialism because you're just exposing your lack of sincerity and fairness.

Economic opportunities is why America is a top destination for immigrants.

I’ve been to a good handful of nation state capitals and seen American Embassies. Invariably, the American Embassy always has the most activity and lines of people looking to meet with American personnel so they can get into the US despite the flaws that the Left keeps highlighting.

Well, of course, the empire is the great consumer. The nation that consumes everything naturally attracts immigrants from the nations of the third world that are consumed for their cheap labor and materials. Yeah? If America continues tinkering and interfering with the politics and economies of developing nations, you will continue receiving a flood of both legal and illegal immigration. Learn Spanish. Acquire a taste for tacos. More cheese nachos are coming to a theater near you.

Who was dropping supplies to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara when they were in the Cuban mountains (of the Sierra Maestra)? The CIA. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiracy, this is well-known. The US supported the rebels, with the hope of eliminating Batista and establishing a new puppet dictatorship that would be more compliant with American interests. Fidel hoodwinked the US government and declared his allegiance to the USSR. Oh well, guess we screwed up there, and now Cubans are suffering for it. Let's stop meddling in the political and economic affairs of other countries and perhaps people like me wouldn't be here in America.

 

[LeftofLeft]

What do you mean by socialism? Socialism exists in various stages, until it ends with high communism (a stateless society, without socioeconomic classes or the need for money). Socialism is a process where the means of production gradually transition into a non-profit mode of production in the hands of the working class. The public ownership of the means of production (of the facilities and machinery), is the latest stage in socialist evolution, that ends with high-communism.

Western Europe, by the standard established by right-wing, FOX NEWS, Republicans in the US, is socialist. You have all of these right-wing ideologues and media pundits in the US raving about how progressive Democrats are "socialists" because they're for universal Medicare and tuition-free education and housing for the homeless. etc. Policies that are taken for granted in Western Europe, and seen as just common sense, are considered "COMMUNIST" here in America.

So your question asking "Where is a good socialist economy?", can be answered by simply pointing to Western Europe and several other parts of the world, where government policies that are considered "COMMUNIST" by American Republicans, are normal and considered SOP (Standard Operating Procedure).

Heavily industrialized, modern democracies around the world, apply socialist principles to their economies. Germany is led by the Socialist Party of Germany, and Spain by their socialist party. The socialists, along with the far-left communists and Green party in Portugal are currently in power. Ireland is moving further to the left. Ther is a huge move in many parts of the world to the left, economically and socially.

Why is your question a bit disingenuous? Well first, you ignored practically every point I've made to you in previous, recent posts. That suggests you're not reading anything I'm saying or you're flippantly dismissing it offhand and continue pressing forward with your misconceptions and poor fuzzy logic. You completely and conveniently ignore America's role in socialism's economic difficulties, with its brutal economic sanctions and threats of violence and actual wars against countries that openly identify as Marxist. You just pretend that's not a factor in any of the failures of the socialist effort to establish a Marxist economy.

You also ignore the fact that not all countries that apply socialist, Marxist principles identify their economies as socialist, lest they get trampled on by the big capitalist gorilla in the room, a.k.a. USA.

How long did it take the mercantile class of Western Europe to replace the kings and feudal lords of Europe? Did the European monarchies of Europe fall to the capitalist Republicans overnight? Was it just one single swoop of the sword that allowed the merchants to become the wealthy, power elites of Europe or did it take several centuries? Did the merchants become powerful industrialists before technology facilitated their rise to power in the 19th century? You need to be honest and fair with your critique of socialism because you're just exposing your lack of sincerity and fairness.



Well, of course, the empire is the great consumer. The nation that consumes everything naturally attracts immigrants from the nations of the third world that are consumed for their cheap labor and materials. Yeah? If America continues tinkering and interfering with the politics and economies of developing nations, you will continue receiving a flood of both legal and illegal immigration. Learn Spanish. Acquire a taste for tacos. More cheese nachos are coming to a theater near you.

Who was dropping supplies to Fidel Castro and Che Guevara when they were in the Cuban mountains? The CIA. This isn't a tinfoil hat conspiracy, this is well-known. The US supported the rebels, with the hope of eliminating Batista and establishing a new puppet dictatorship that would be more compliant with American interests. Fidel hoodwinked the US government and declared his allegiance to the USSR. Oh well, guess we screwed up there, and now Cubans are suffering for it. Let's stop meddling in the political and economic affairs of other countries and perhaps people like me wouldn't be here in America.

I read everything you posted yet I don’t subscribe to the notion that all of these other countries’ problems over the last century are due to America pushing a Capitalist economy. I guess America was the only superpower pushing its political and economic policies while the Socialist and Communist nations sat idle on the sidelines? All of those Central and South American Countries’ problems of today are because of America’s economic and political push?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Weird way of putting it. They spent money to train to be able to DO their high-paying job. Good Investment.

The Attitude Is, "If You're So Smart, Why Haven't You Made the Rich Richer?"

Those most able to "invest" in education aren't those most able to do the job. So unpaid education only produces generic employees. They "know how to" do the job, but that's the same as the fact that most boys "know how to" play a sport but can't even make their team.

Generic is degenerate.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Name a socialist economy with a thriving middle class as well as one that provides a solid economic opportunity? Economic opportunities is why America is a top destination for immigrants. I’ve been to a good handful of nation state capitals and seen American Embassies. Invariably, the American Embassy always has the most activity and lines of people looking to meet with American personnel so they can get into the US despite the flaws that the Left keeps highlighting.

All Foreigners Want to Freeload off the Achievements of White Americans

 

[Red Front]

I read everything you posted yet I don’t subscribe to the notion that all of these other countries’ problems over the last century are due to America pushing a Capitalist economy. I guess America was the only superpower pushing its political and economic policies while the Socialist and Communist nations sat idle on the sidelines? All of those Central and South American Countries’ problems of today are because of America’s economic and political push?

I didn't say ALL of the problems, but nonetheless, a capitalist-run US government did have a significant role to play in the state of these socialist economies. The US with 14 other countries, invaded Russia in 1918. Since then, that has been the SOP for the united states against countries that outwardly identify as Marxist. Economic embargoes and war. Despite this, the socialists were able to turn Russia, an under-industrialized, agrarian society, with an 87% illiteracy rate, ruled by a king (tzar) and thousands of Kulaks (feudal lords), into a socialist world superpower with a 90%+ literacy rate. This notwithstanding all of the obstacles and challenges, like four million Nazis invading them and decimating a significant % of the infrastructure that was built under Stalin in the 1930s. The Soviets lost 27 million people.

The Soviets had to pick themselves up by their bootstraps, without any assistance (there was no "Marshal Plan" for the Soviets, funded by the US, as there was for Western Europe and Japan), and rebuild their socialist country and once again, they became a world-power, second to the United States. That's freaking impressive. To pretend otherwise is disingenuous, at best.

Just as it took centuries for capitalism to replace feudalism and the monarchies of Europe, it will take time for socialism, to completely replace capitalism. This isn't going to happen overnight, unless right-wing extremists exacerbate the many problems of capitalism, accelerating the transition from capitalism to socialism. They make conditions so austere and painful for the working-class, that they spark a violent revolution or at best, increase the number of socialists in government to where a dramatic political shift occurs, toppling capitalism.

As advanced automation and artificial intelligence continue to develop, eventually it will lead society to the adoption of a non-profit system of production, a.k.a. socialism. The only alternative to that is techno-feudalism. Something akin to this:

​

 

[Independent thinker]

The investment of the youth and the future of our country is in dedicating all of their time and energy to studying. That's all they should worry about in college or in vocational school. Studying. Hitting the books HARD.

If they get a job because they need to support themselves, while they're studying, the last thing they need is to also have to pay tuition fees and worry about scholarships (they already have a scholarship from the society that they're going to serve after they get their degrees or trade). Our country has more than enough wealth to provide our citizens with the best education, tuition-free.

With few exceptions, the children of the wealthy, don't need to get a 9 to 5 to support themselves while they're studying, to avoid starving to death or going homeless. Their rich daddy and mommy tells them "honey, just focus on your studies". Education is vital to our country's survival and success, hence it should be provided tuition-free at all public schools. Preschool to Ph.D. They will pay back society, by fully committing themselves to their profession, whatever that might be. The ROI, of investing in the education of our children is 1000-fold. It's an investment that society must ensure. It should not be left to a market or a person's ability to pay, sell their labor power or convince someone to grant them a scholarship.

More, your claim that people should score a B to benefit from a college education is false. If a person chooses to go to college rather than to a vocational school, and they don't have a higher-than-average IQ or make a B average, that doesn't mean that they and their community can't benefit from that college education. They can still become a productive member of society without having a high IQ or scoring above-average grades in college. If they try college and don't succeed, they can go to a vocational school. College refines people, it expands cognition, a person's ability to conduct their own research, and develop a more sophisticated perspective of reality. It opens the mind, hence it's good for everyone.

We're shameless in admitting that our children will have access to plenty of resources to help them succeed in life, while we convey our austere plan for "success" to the working class (those other people).

"Listen, all of you working-class people, I know my children won't have to do this, but here is a plan for you to have your children get themselves up by their bootstraps and work themselves 7 to 5 or maybe 9 to 7 into a college degree or trade. Here it is:

You sleep maybe five hours daily at the most, preferably four hours if you can, and you ride the train and a bus to work six days a week, then at night you hop on the bus and that takes you back to the train and then you ride the train to night college. I suggest you drink some RED BULL, to keep you "energetic" and attentive in class.

After school at 10:15 pm, you run back to the train (real fast, like Tom Cruise):

​

...and ride it to the bus stop. Then you ride the bus back home, arriving at around 11:25 pm. You take a shower, and by 12 midnight you're ready to hit the sack. You don't really have to study, due to all of the RED BULL you're drinking. You wake up at 5 am and repeat, wax on and wax off, six days weekly for four years and you'll have a degree. "

View attachment 791104​

That's what you have to do young lady. I know you're tired, but if you want an education, you're going to have to work hard (REAL HARD - like IRON WOMAN). Walmart isn't paying you a living wage, and you're on food stamps, but just toughen up girl.


The wealthy advisor to the working class turns around to her kids....

" Son just focus on your studies, get good grades, and rich mommy will take care of your expenses. It's those working-class people that should, work it out for themselves. That's life. Survival of the fittest, but you're lucky. Just study and I'll take care of the rest. Once you graduate, I'll even help you get established in society, and get a good job. You'll start your new career with plenty of support from your wealthy, well-connected family and Jewish community".

What planet are you from again?