The only hope for this country is democratic socialism & equal redistribution of wealth

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Ismail

 

it's better that a few die of starvation than we all do because a group of elites hold control. Communism will ALWAYS breed elites. We evolved to follow something, so we will FIND something to follow in the lack there of.

FOLKS! BOLSHEVISM WAS FINANCED AND CREATED BY BROWN BROTHERS HARRIMAN, THE FED AND BANK OF ENGLAND ... WHO TOTALLY FINANCED AND CURRENT CONTINUE TO FINANCE COMMUNISM AND FINANCED AND CONTINUE TO FINANCE NAZIS AND NEO-NAZIS

...hello? this is why we need to destroy capitalism, the owning of 99% of the world by 1% of the psychopathic and sociopathy CAPITALISTS and REDISTRIBUTE THAT 99% of the world back to 99% of the people.


Wake up. YOU'RE NOT CAPITALISTS! YOU'RE WAGE SLAVES.

eustace mullins, ‘Secrets of the Federal Reserve’
www.barefootsworld.net...

who are the private bankers that own the Fed that owns the banks that own the oil companies?
www.americanciviliancounter-terroristmanual.4t.com...

What companies do you hate the most
www.abovetopsecret.com...

For neo-Nazi holocaust deniers
www.abovetopsecret.com...

The propaganda of the far right has really distorted the average persons perception of politics for decades. Social democracy is probably the only valid form of democracy on the planet. Winner take all politics, and a society that favors a small corporate elite and make slaves of its citizens, where services and quality of life is not the right of all, but the icing on the cake for the privileged few, is very patriarchal. Without female energy co-creating the political system, democracy fails in its essence, as just over half the citizens age 20 and up, are female.

It costs more money in the end to be cruel. The costs in prisons alone, and health care are enormous. Michael Moore did a comparison on health care amongst leading nations, and omitted part of his film. He failed to include it because he felt no one would believe it, at least in the US.

and www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

Americans have a difficult time understanding how countries which pay high wages, impose higher taxes, and practice careful intervention in their economies are n becoming more prosperous and productive than our own.

and

www.washingtonpost.com...
Finns have one of the world's most generous systems of state-funded educational, medical and welfare services, from pregnancy to the end of life. They pay nothing for education at any level, including medical school or law school. Their medical care, which contributes to an infant mortality rate that is half of ours and a life expectancy greater than ours, costs relatively little. (Finns devote 7 percent of gross domestic product to health care; we spend 15 percent.) Finnish senior citizens are well cared for. Unemployment benefits are good and last, in one form or another, indefinitely.


One fundamental Finnish value sounds a lot like an American principle -- "to provide equal opportunities in life for everyone," as Pekka Himanen, a 31-year-old intellectual wunderkind in Helsinki, put it. Himanen, a product of Finnish schools who got his PhD in philosophy at 21, argues that Finland now does this much better than the United States, where he lived for several years while associated with the University of California in Berkeley.


In Finland, Himanen said, opportunity does not depend on "an accident of birth." All Finns have an equal shot at life, liberty and happiness. Yes, this is supposed to be an American thing, but many well-traveled younger Finns, who all seem to speak English, have a Finnish take on American realities. Miapetra Kumpula, a 32-year-old member of Parliament, volunteered this on the American dream: "Sure, anyone can get rich -- but most won't."



www.7dvt.com...

October, a new study commissioned by Reader?s Digest added environmental health to the equation to rank ?the planet?s greenest, most livable places.? The U.S. came in at number 23 on the list of 141 countries.

The winner? Finland ? a small Scandinavian country about 13 times the size of Vermont ? followed by Iceland, Norway and Sweden.

What?s Finland got that the U.S. doesn?t? Universal health care. The best-fed and highest-scoring high school students in the world. A transparent government renowned for protecting civil liberties and freedom of the press. Free childcare for working parents. The secont-most competitive economy on the globe. Oh, yeah, and a woman president assisted by a majority female cabinet.

www.thirdworldtraveler.com...

PERCENTAGE OF CHILDREN LIVING IN POVERTY

United States ------------ 21.5%
Great Britain ------------- 9.9%
Germany ----------------- 6.8%
France -------------------- 6.5%
Belgium ------------------ 3.8%
Sweden ------------------- 2.7%

You truly get what you pay for. As for the tax systems themselves
www.oecdobserver.org...
Top marginal rates of personal income tax levied by central government range from 25% in Sweden and 33% in New Zealand to as much as 60% in the Netherlands. In Ireland and New Zealand, taxpayers at the income level of an average production worker are -already exposed to the top marginal rate of 48% and 33% respectively. In Austria, Belgium, Canada, Finland, France, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom workers must earn about twice the average before they start paying the top rate.

On the other hand, Swiss and US employees are not confronted by the top rate unless their salaries reach ten times the average production worker’s wage. In Turkey the top rate does not kick in until taxable income is 29 times the average wage and more. The table summarises the rate structure of the personal income tax levied by central governments in all OECD countries.

We live in a world where corporate wealth can write off nearly everything and the tax burnden is carried by the working class almost solely. Plugging tax holes and overhauling system would help.

Uh, intelligence is not measured in the lowest denominator.

A crow can make tools. It's brain is just advanced as an Apes in terms of physical understanding. But do they use this intelligence always? No. Apes do, hence why they won.

People are all equal intelligent, it's just a matter of who will dedicate their lives to learn.



And yes, we did evolve to follow someone. If you don't think so, you're ignoring billions of years of evolution.

Originally posted by Gorman91
^ Hence why communism doesn't work. A leader rises amongst the wild masses to proclaim the forcing of others to work, and then an elite class rises of that leader's friends, and la de dum, you've got a dictator.

hello? you've just described capitalism, too.

We're talking about 100% of humanity owning or not-owning 100% of existance and freedom. NOT ABOUT CAPITALISTS WHO ARE THE MONEY-ISSUING CLASS -- and less than 1% of humanity, owning EVERYTHING.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by counterterrorist]

reply to post by counterterrorist


You can't stop what people will do because you removed a central gove to do that.


reply to post by mystiq


Isn't that "too good to be true" France the same nation with angry immigrant Muslims because their not cared for? Gee, I wonder where those fires are in that country side.

Once more, Moore is dumb.

[edit on 26-6-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by Rockpuck


I always enjoy your smart retorts...

Steak and potatoes in my comfy home as well, the difference is that I'm also concerned about the care and feeding of citizens less fortunate than myself.

The simple fact remains that the top 5% enjoy, to gross excess, the bulk of the fruits of labor provided by the remaining 95%. It's wrong. Furthermore, that 5% use their money and the influence it buys to consolidate yet more wealth and power. That's wrong too.


SuperClass: The Real Face Of Power

And to further illustrate, just turn on the T.V. tonight:

www.cnbc.com...

reply to post by kosmicjack


And if you stop them then all the lower plebs say "why work if they'll just take it from me at the top."

My family is in this area. My father made $250,000, and the government takes half. He's considering retiring now because there's no point if he doesn't get his proper payment.



[edit on 26-6-2008 by Gorman91]

reply to post by mystiq


Norway also has such vast oil reserves that the money from the sale of oil is enough to pay for every socialized program. Even the fairy tale prison.

So it is also ironic that it is the Liberals that bloke the drilling of oil in America..

well in that case, bring on NAU.

Hey, it gives an excuse.

And once again, Socialism forms an elite class. The elites claim they'll help you by expanding government to get oil and afford social programs. Then they control you.

reply to post by kosmicjack


Hence is the result of a Capitalist society. The thing is, Karl Marx had good intentions when developing Communism because he saw the same things. Even though Communism is shunned, it was for good intentions. I however cannot agree with the loss of individuality and personal freedoms which seem to accompany this style of gov't. Perhaps some sort of balance between the two...

Good post and great thread you've linked to there.

Even Einstein, the smartest man in the world, was a self-proclaimed socialist.

reply to post by kosmicjack

Steak and potatoes in my comfy home as well, the difference is that I'm also concerned about the care and feeding of citizens less fortunate than myself.

True. I'm not.

The simple fact remains that the top 5% enjoy, to gross excess, the bulk of the fruits of labor provided by the remaining 95%. It's wrong.

It's not wrong, it's capitalism. Should the teller at a store get the same wage as the CEO? Some seem to think so. The CEO gets money because he has the intelligence and will to run a corporation while the teller is more complacent getting drunk at night to drown out the noise her 5 kids are making.

Furthermore, that 5% use their money and the influence it buys to consolidate yet more wealth and power. That's wrong too.

What right do you have to tell someone how they should spend their money?

Thats right. You have no right.

And to further illustrate, just turn on the T.V. tonight:

Don't like to watch TV. I own a TV only for the DVD player.

Originally posted by ALightinDarkness
reply to post by Zepherian

 

No, it cannot be done equitably.

Who gets to decide how much your job is or is not worth? Why would anyone have an incentive to take a job that requires a lot of studying (like a doctor) when they could just be a janitor and get paid the same amount? Who gets to decide who is doing the "real work" for a corporation? Currently, the market sets the salary - if its too low no one will apply, if its too high the company will lose money compared to the competition. You would have the government magically pick the numbers out of the air?

Who gets to force corporations to pay all of their profits out? The government. The United States Congress recently just privatized the house restaurants because they were losing money when being run by the government. And you think these people are smart enough to order companies how much money they have to pay to their employees? They can't even run their own food services without going in debt millions every year! It would be funny, if you weren't serious...

[edit on 24-6-2008 by ALightinDarkness]

It can be done fairly if the excessive profits from these mega corporations are used to fund universal free healthcare. It would relieve the burden from business owners and employees.

It's not wrong, it's capitalism. Should the teller at a store get the same wage as the CEO? Some seem to think so. The CEO gets money because he has the intelligence and will to run a corporation while the teller is more complacent getting drunk at night to drown out the noise her 5 kids are making.

Sometimes the teller should get more, as she is actually doing some work while the CEO is a worthless parasite that often does NOTHING productive within the corporate structure. Doubt me? I've seen CEO's being paid 200m dollars just to leave after their company had negative results. CEO's are parasite positions, although I will admit exceptions obviously. For example, Ghosn over at Nissan-Renault seems to be doing a good job and slowly releasing ecological tech (electric cars coming out in isreal and a declaration to have electric models on sale by 2010, which is big coming from mainstream autos). Give this man his millions. But most of them? Nah, sorry, that logic fails.

If you're totally laissez faire then the logical conclusion is nothing is wrong, it just happens. If I believed that line instead of debating with you I would probably be overpowering you and taking all that you own. Ethics matter and you need to incorporate them into the dominant political philosophy or you WILL see society go backwards.

Has not 8 years of Bush Jr showed you that?

reply to post by mystiq


Excellent post, thank you for documenting with a concrete example a centrist political platform for those of us talking more from a theoretical pov.

reply to post by Zepherian

while the CEO is a worthless parasite

Is he?

Are you a CEO?

Could YOU run a multi national institution? I imagine your .. abilities .. are hardly any where near the likes of a CEO. I sense jealousy, which I must say is very unbecoming..

Ethics matter

The Federal Government has no place to decide what is ethical or unethical.

reply to post by counterterrorist

I think you missed the point of that reply, dude.

I was defending the concept of insuring a Basic Economic Security.

from a place of some security people can achieve, with no security, more people will die.

I was mocking the conservative attitude toward the disadvantaged with the crack about disappearing. many Liberals and Conservatives really do think that way.

you should talk to your doctor about prescription xanax.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Zepherian

 

Well I don't think the rich should be robbed. Taxed more I guess, yea, but that's it.

This is not a tax or a robbery, it's a limit. It's saying "this is the most society allows you to have because more than this and history has shown that the individual influence would be too strong and unbalance society".

It's about an equilibrium state. Defending a person's right to be rich in an unlimited fashion, even if that obviously eats into the aspirations, liberties and rights of the broader population is the most insane part of American political ideology.

Let people be rich, sure. I'm even open to letting them have low tax rates. But somewhere up there you need a point where society says "enough". Or they will say enough to everyone else. History shows this with no ambiguity.

reply to post by Rockpuck


Asking me what or who I am is an ad homine and you're sidestepping the points I brought up because you can't adequatly respond to them. Saying that my whole position is based on envy is another ad homine, because I haven't let enough of my personality come through in my posts for you to make that judgement. Kindly stick to the topic, if you can.

As for ethics matter and federal government, well, here you might be right, as the US federal government does seem to be in somewhat of a representative crysis, ie, it is no longer composed of people representing their constituients (sp?), and in that case you have a problem. But this dosen't alter the reality that ethics matter in ANY social contract held between the people and their governments, because the alternative is going back to the historical cycle of tyranny and revolt. Something which tecnological opression won't change, I think. This is a problem the US people will have to solve, and tbh I don't have an idea where to start, appart from giving more support to true patriots like Ron Paul and Ralph Nader, people who have correctly identified the core problems of corporate america.

reply to post by WhatTheory

My Main Man: China is the only remaining superpower.

I'm sorry I had to be the one to tell you.

you do realize we can't even handle a simple occupation in a dirthole country right?

it's okay not to be a superpower. we are still a great country.

I'd rather be american any day than chinese for one hour.

reply to post by Rockpuck


not 33degree? loser.



and since when did the rich save money? they just build good money making machines! they make a system where they can get more money for their investment.

everyone counts.

that machine can't work without workers, without consumers.

unless you're being sarcastic, I do have to say that's a bone headed comment, 'the rich save, the poor waste'.

Poor people can be the most resourceful, most self-denying people.

as a poor kid, I learned a deep frugality. I am able to buy just about any kind of clothes, but I'll never spend more than 30 bucks TOPS for a pair of jeans.
it just isn't in me.

being poor gives you a sense of what objects are actually worth.

it gives you appreciation of what a dollar can buy, and the work involved in making it.

so.... you give your wife the Plastic and let her spend 300 bucks on crap?

bet you do.

there's a reason most americans are $8,000+ in debt.

they think they just charge it indefinately.

there's always a consolation I give the poor: at least what you have, you earned.

The spectrum of lower middle class to upper class never own ANYTHING but debt.

that car? lease it.
that house? mortgage!
that coat? credit!!

I rest my case.