The Rich Are Getting Richer!

Boss

Take a Memo:
Apr 21, 2012
21,884
2,773
280
Birmingham, AL
How many times have we heard this meme in recent years... The rich are getting richer while the poor remain poor... the gap between the wealthiest and poorest is widening... we must take some kind of governmental action to rectify this "problem" and ostensibly return us to a "fairness" in wealth distribution. A lot of young mush-brains, who weren't very astute in history, may believe this is some new recent phenomenon that needs addressing, but the fact of the matter is... it has always been this way, and always will be this way.

For the most part, not in all cases, but mostly, the wealthy people got to be wealthy because they had the motivation and drive to succeed, more drive and motivation than poorer people. They were smart with money, they made wise decisions, worked hard and didn't squander resources, made the most of what was available to them, and prospered. While they were doing all of this, the poor people sat in their chairs and blamed their condition on others, made excuses for why they couldn't achieve, or just became content and complacent about the status of their wealth, in return for happiness in the moment. There is nothing wrong with either perspective, but the wealthy person tends to continue gaining more wealth over time, just by nature of their drive and ambition to succeed.

The interesting aspect is, where does this meme come from? We have to go back to the 1700s, where Europe was mostly dominated by dictatorial regimes and royal families, and there was no freedom and democracy like we have in the US. In most of those situations, the citizenry was divided by class as a matter of public law. There were laws which only applied to peasants, and the ruling class could virtually do anything they pleased. Of course, work ethic, drive and motivation, meant absolutely nothing in such a setup, because the ruling class controlled everything, the power and the wealth. Therefore, the common people had little hope for any kind of a future, and they certainly weren't going to ever attain the wealth status of the ruling class.

Enter the idea of Socialism and Marxist philosophy, intended and designed to appeal to the common man, a way to right the injustices of a very biased and unfair class society. The people were energized by this promise of hope, and saw this new idea as a possible way to escape the dead-end fortune of being part of the peasant class. This all sounded great in theory, but as the people revolted and installed socialistic governments, the reality was a vulcanization of the ruling class, who still controlled all the wealth and power. It seemed to work in the beginning, but corruption quickly killed any progress, and the peasants found themselves again, being subjected to the whims of the ruling class. However, a new idea had come of age in America, the idea of a classless society where all men were equal under the law, and free to utilize the tools of capitalism to gain prosperity for themselves. Of course, there were still wealthy people who had an advantage, but this system seemed to enable even the poorest of the poor, to rise up from poverty and become successful.

Now, this free market capitalist system had some flaws, some capitalists exploited advantages and orchestrated monopolies, to become super-powerful and wealthy, but as time went by, we changed and tweaked the system to eliminate such exploitation by unbridled capitalism. The free system worked well for America through two world wars, where our ability to grow and prosper, enabled us to simply out perform our enemies on an economic level. But after the second world war, we moved into the 1950s and 60s, with a resurgence of this Marxist philosophy, and the systemic dumbing-down of Americans, through our institutions of higher learning, and later, our secondary and elementary education systems. People simply stopped being taught about these two competing ideas, and were educated to believe that Socialists were Communists, and Communists are bad people. Of course, by the 1970s and 1980s, young people rejected the old school teachings, and opened their ears to the Socialist philosophy, like never before.

Today, the same exact memes are being used to promote the same exact Marxist ideas, but a "perception" has to be drawn. They have to convince people that we live in a non-free country, where people don't have opportunity to succeed, and face a hopeless situation, where the ruling class controls everything and we are powerless. This is where the idea that "rich people pay lower taxes" originates. As if the wealthy "class" has a different set of rules and laws, like in 1700s Europe. This is ALL perception, because the reality is, we all have the exact same US Tax Code, we are all eligible for the exact same tax breaks and loopholes. The reason wealthy people generally pay lower taxes, is because their incomes have already been earned and taxed, as earned incomes. They are now using their remaining income to invest, in order to make more money with their money.

Now, think about this... You pay about 30% tax on your earned income from work, it is deducted from your paycheck, right? But, when you go to the store to buy something, are you charged 30% tax on what you buy? No. You are likely charged a sales tax, which is considerably lower than 30%, and this is okay because your income has already been taxed. The same principle applies to a wealthy investor, their incomes have already been taxed, they are now spending their incomes on something to make more money with. They don't have to do this, they can just keep their money or spend it on stuff like you do, and only pay sales taxes, but they have this drive and ambition I referred to earlier, so they invest instead. And it's important they do this, because it gives little guys the capital needed to get their business off the ground, where they can also become wealthy.

Those who have bought in to the Socialist meme, are not realizing the consequence of Socialistic government, or what will ultimately happen to the "greedy 1%" they hate so much. We will continue to have a Top 1%, that never will go away. At this time, in a free market capitalist system, anyone can become part of that 1%, if they have the proper drive and ambition to do so. However, once you've destroyed free market capitalism, the Socialist ruling class will obtain all of that wealth for themselves, through graft and corruption, and then you will be left with a Top 1% who control all political power, all the wealth, and the ability to make their own rules. Gone, will be your opportunity to compete in a free market system, to achieve wealth status at all, to ever become part of the 1%. While you are free to bitch and moan about wealth disparity now, you won't be able to do so then, because the ruling class will put a stop to it. In the past, they have executed people, imprisoned them, taken their limited rights away, in order to remain in power.

Of course, mush-brain young people will not listen, they believe they know everything, and have very little knowledge of past history, so... just like Obamacare, they will press on with the meme, and insist we need to destroy the only hope any poor man will ever have of gaining wealth status, the free market capitalist system. Completely oblivious to the ramifications or consequences, and unable to recognize the fault in their plans. When they finally discover how screwed we are, it will be far too late to reverse course. How do I know this? Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.
 
Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger."
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog
 
Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger."
[deleted socialist propaganda blog]

Despite your socialist propaganda, your examples all suck moose balls. Small isolated populations, such as the Scandinavian countries listed, Ireland and New Zealand, can function with a semi-socialist governmental structure, largely due to several factors which don't apply to the US or any sizable and mobile country. The people all start off at relatively the same status, they provide relatively equal service or production, and have relatively the same requirements for day to day living. They have virtually no immigration, relatively no military costs, and everyone basically knows and trusts their neighbors, who never change.

The sizable countries listed here are China and maybe Canada, although, Canada is very sparsely populated compared to the US or China. Canada has struggled with Socialist policies, often having to go back and reintroduce capitalist policies to rescue failing socialist programs. China is the only comparable example to the US, and we can look at the history there to find the people are still living in abject poverty compared to the rest of the world. Poor people in China are lucky to have a bowl of rice and make a dollar a day. This, in spite of years and years of Socialist Maoism, which was supposed to raise everyone up from poverty 70 years ago. The reality is, it wasn't until they got rid of Mao, and began implementing western style free market capitalist policies, the nation was able to prosper economically. Still, most of China lives in abject poverty with no hope for the future. Not a real good example of the greatness of Socialism, in my opinion. There is still, very much, a 1% in China, while the 99% enjoy their daily bowl of rice and slave wages. Of course, they don't have much trouble with greedy rich people getting richer.

So, I will amend my comment to say, Socialism has failed in all but the rarest of circumstances, where the people are isolated and live in tight-knit 'communes' and have limited mobility and immigration. In those small isolated countries, the socialist model works, but there is no opportunity to become wealthy or prosperous...and they are fine with that. Every time the same socialist model has been tried in a large diverse nation, it has ended in abject failure. Usually, with tens of millions being executed at an open ditch, when the government can no longer afford them.
 
Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger."
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog

Despite your socialist propaganda, your examples all suck moose balls. Small isolated populations, such as the Scandinavian countries listed, Ireland and New Zealand, can function with a semi-socialist governmental structure, largely due to several factors which don't apply to the US or any sizable and mobile country. The people all start off at relatively the same status, they provide relatively equal service or production, and have relatively the same requirements for day to day living. They have virtually no immigration, relatively no military costs, and everyone basically knows and trusts their neighbors, who never change.

The sizable countries listed here are China and maybe Canada, although, Canada is very sparsely populated compared to the US or China. Canada has struggled with Socialist policies, often having to go back and reintroduce capitalist policies to rescue failing socialist programs. China is the only comparable example to the US, and we can look at the history there to find the people are still living in abject poverty compared to the rest of the world. Poor people in China are lucky to have a bowl of rice and make a dollar a day. This, in spite of years and years of Socialist Maoism, which was supposed to raise everyone up from poverty 70 years ago. The reality is, it wasn't until they got rid of Mao, and began implementing western style free market capitalist policies, the nation was able to prosper economically. Still, most of China lives in abject poverty with no hope for the future. Not a real good example of the greatness of Socialism, in my opinion. There is still, very much, a 1% in China, while the 99% enjoy their daily bowl of rice and slave wages. Of course, they don't have much trouble with greedy rich people getting richer.

So, I will amend my comment to say, Socialism has failed in all but the rarest of circumstances, where the people are isolated and live in tight-knit 'communes' and have limited mobility and immigration. In those small isolated countries, the socialist model works, but there is no opportunity to become wealthy or prosperous...and they are fine with that. Every time the same socialist model has been tried in a large diverse nation, it has ended in abject failure. Usually, with tens of millions being executed at an open ditch, when the government can no longer afford them.

That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Funny, you always seem to lack links to authoritative sources. Odd, don't ya think???
Tacky how you think that anything that disagrees with what you want to believe so badly is propaganda.
http://blog.peerform.com/top-ten-most-socialist-countries-in-the-world/

There are no strictly capitalistic economies. There are no strictly socialistic economies. There are mixed economies. As you should know. So you are simply talking about what economies that are more socialist in nature are doing well, or really badly. So, certainly canada, germany, and the nordic nations are all doing quite well, thank you. They really do not fit into your world view.

By the way, altering the posted data of other people's posts is bad form.
 
Last edited:
Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Finland can get away with a socialistic government because each country is united by a common freaking gene pool. They are all related. When it was convenient they were pro-Nazi during WW2. The US has more illegal aliens than the entire population of Scandinavia.
 
For the most part, not in all cases, but mostly, the wealthy people got to be wealthy because they had the motivation and drive to succeed, more drive and motivation than poorer people. .

That's almost complete bullshit.

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth. The ones that do make it are generally completely ruthless scumbags.

But do keep up your worship.
 
For the most part, not in all cases, but mostly, the wealthy people got to be wealthy because they had the motivation and drive to succeed, more drive and motivation than poorer people. .

That's almost complete bullshit.

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth. The ones that do make it are generally completely ruthless scumbags.

But do keep up your worship.

slobbering envy much?

:lol:
 
For the most part, not in all cases, but mostly, the wealthy people got to be wealthy because they had the motivation and drive to succeed, more drive and motivation than poorer people. .

That's almost complete bullshit.

The Majority of rich people are rich by birth. The ones that do make it are generally completely ruthless scumbags.

But do keep up your worship.

Nonsense. You need desperately to prop up this perception of things, because that is the ONLY way the public will give up economic freedom for [the empty promise of] economic security. This was much easier for the Marxist and Maoists across Europe and Asia, because they actually did have tyrants and kings, systems of law favoring the elite and burdening the poor, and no opportunity at all for the common people.

However, in the US, we have a free market capitalist system of free enterprise, where people like Oprah Winfrey can emerge from Mississippi tar shacks and become among the wealthiest people in America. She wasn't a ruthless scumbag, she had drive and determination, she worked hard and refused to be a 'victim'. She is one person, but there are millions of people like her, who we never hear of because they aren't entertainers, who have overcome adversity and poverty, to become uber-successful under our system. There are far more billionaires and millionaires today than even 20 years ago, so these are not people who were born into wealth, they've only earned it over a generation. But you MUST promote a perception, your ENTIRE socialist argument depends on this perception. Without it, you can't make your argument even seem reasonable to the morons out there.

Now you have what you have, which is about 35~40% of America who has simply been brainwashed because they were largely ignorant and uneducated, and too lazy to think. They are tricked into believing this is a game, a political contest of their "team" who wants to "help people" by doing things for them, like giving out free health care... how's that working for ya? They'll make sure they have good jobs with fair pay.... how's that working out? These people will likely go through their entire life, believing the glory days are just around the corner, as our once great free market system which enabled so many poor people to become wealthy, completely gets destroyed and replaced with Marxism.
 
That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Funny, you always seem to lack links to authoritative sources. Odd, don't ya think???
Tacky how you think that anything that disagrees with what you want to believe so badly is propaganda.
[another socialist propaganda blog link redacted]

There are no strictly capitalistic economies. There are no strictly socialistic economies. There are mixed economies. As you should know. So you are simply talking about what economies that are more socialist in nature are doing well, or really badly. So, certainly canada, germany, and the nordic nations are all doing quite well, thank you. They really do not fit into your world view.

By the way, altering the posted data of other people's posts is bad form.

Funny, you seem to keep thinking your socialist propaganda blogs are legitimate authoritative sources. These are opinions of people who are paid to blog by their Marxist masters. Everything they present, is orchestrated and manipulated information, designed to perpetuate the perception Socialists need, in order to advance their argument. You see, the meme doesn't work when it comes to freedom, because we are all free to become billionaires here, if that's what we want to do. Some of us need to find and realize our passion, some of us need to acquire motivation and ambition, but we are all capable of this. Over in Europe and Asia during the 1700s and 1800s, people legitimately didn't have this opportunity afforded to them, because they didn't have our freedom. That's why the Socialist Marxist memes worked so well there, and you have to spend so much time perpetuating a perception here. And hey.... to your credit, it's fucking working for ya! Millions of Americans are so dumbed down and completely ignorant of history and how our system and government works, or what our constitution guarantees, you can mold them into good little Socialist warriors really easy.
 
Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger."
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog
True, these are very socialist nations by today's standards but all these nations are also capitalist. By regulating capitalism and socializing selected selected segments of society, we have the best of both worlds, safety nets that protect the most vulnerable in society and free markets that maximizes production of goods and services.
 
Last edited:
That would be your opinion. And you know how much I value your opinion.
Funny, you always seem to lack links to authoritative sources. Odd, don't ya think???
Tacky how you think that anything that disagrees with what you want to believe so badly is propaganda.
[another socialist propaganda blog link redacted]

There are no strictly capitalistic economies. There are no strictly socialistic economies. There are mixed economies. As you should know. So you are simply talking about what economies that are more socialist in nature are doing well, or really badly. So, certainly canada, germany, and the nordic nations are all doing quite well, thank you. They really do not fit into your world view.

By the way, altering the posted data of other people's posts is bad form.

Funny, you seem to keep thinking your socialist propaganda blogs are legitimate authoritative sources. These are opinions of people who are paid to blog by their Marxist masters. Everything they present, is orchestrated and manipulated information, designed to perpetuate the perception Socialists need, in order to advance their argument. You see, the meme doesn't work when it comes to freedom, because we are all free to become billionaires here, if that's what we want to do. Some of us need to find and realize our passion, some of us need to acquire motivation and ambition, but we are all capable of this. Over in Europe and Asia during the 1700s and 1800s, people legitimately didn't have this opportunity afforded to them, because they didn't have our freedom. That's why the Socialist Marxist memes worked so well there, and you have to spend so much time perpetuating a perception here. And hey.... to your credit, it's fucking working for ya! Millions of Americans are so dumbed down and completely ignorant of history and how our system and government works, or what our constitution guarantees, you can mold them into good little Socialist warriors really easy.
Again, you provide opinion without any link to authoritative sources. No studies. Nothing. Just your opinion. Which, me boy, has only negative value.
To you, any source other than those of the bat shit crazy con web sites are Marxist, or socialist. Stupid. You are completely incapable of discussion.
The sites I quoted are not socialist. Not Marxist. Simply sites that provide studies of the way things are in reality. I understand, reality based studies are not your thing.
 
Because it has happened over and over again, everywhere people have attempted to install Socialistic government. It is a guaranteed recipe for failure.

"Below, you will see some of the most socialistic nations in the world today:
China
Denmark
Finland
Netherlands
Canada
Sweden
Norway
Ireland
New Zealand
Belgium
Despite popular myths, there is very little connection between economic performance and welfare expenditure. Many of the countries on this list are proof of that, such as Denmark and Finland. Even though both countries are more socialistic than America, the workforce remains stronger."
Top 10 Most Socialist Countries in the World - Peerform Blog
True, these are very socialist nations by today's standards but all these nations are also capitalist. By regulating capitalism and socializing selected selected segments of society, we have the best of both worlds, safety nets that protect the most vulnerable in society and free markets that maximizes production of goods and services.
Absolutely. You have it in a nice neat nutshell. Socialism in itself is not a good thing, nor necessarily a bad thing. Only the people of those countries can make that subjective judgement. Same with Capitalism. Which is why there are no actual market systems, in the true sense of the term. Monopoly has seen to that. But, regulated capitalism is a realalternative
But what is true is that there are studies galore of how those social capitalist economies are working. And many are doing quite well.
What is absolutely true is that there are no Laissez-faire economies left. If there ever really was one, it died a natural death. Just like communism, the people did not like the results.
There are plenty of con tools like "Boss" who like to say differently. But they can not provide proof, because it does not exist. Essentially the ideal of the Libertarian economy is a wet dream pushed by conservative tools who can not admit that there is no such thing as a libertarian economy.
 
Last edited:
True, these are very socialist nations by today's standards but all these nations are also capitalist. By regulating capitalism and socializing selected selected segments of society, we have the best of both worlds, safety nets that protect the most vulnerable in society and free markets that maximizes production of goods and services.

I fundamentally disagree in "the best of both worlds" here, because it's not the best. It works in low population, low consumer-driven nations, with non-diverse local populations, just like it works for many typical American neighborhoods and communities, or developments and subdivisions. Any time you take the ideology to larger and larger populations, it falters. The common bond is lost, it simply fails due to corruption that is unavoidable, and the stifling of capitalist venture, which means jobs and economy.

The ONLY thing in our society that works well on what you would call a "socialist" platform, is covering the cost of our military. That is the only legitimate expenditure our government has under the Constitution, the rest of this stuff is created from mangling the Constitution over the years. Defense spending is about the only expense we should all share as a nation, the rest of the stuff should be up to states, cities, communities, to vote on and decide to do for their own people, if that's what they want. It's not the Federal Government's constitutional authority to be our Socialist King and Ruler.

When we subvert FREEDOM in order to install socialism, we are not helping anything, we are not making life better for anyone. We are destroying the only thing that has been the promise for the hopeless, going on 250 years. Our system which allows the poorest of the poor to attain and amass wealth beyond their wildest dreams. It's why people have risked their lives on makeshift rafts to come here. Free market capitalism is not the problem, it's the solution, not just the BEST, but the ONLY solution.

Now, as I said, in small isolated communities, maybe everyone can agree on pooling resources to pay for something they will benefit from, and that's fine with me, I have no problem with socialistic philosophy on small scale in a community, it sometimes is the best answer to a problem. It simply fails on a large level, and it has to stifle capitalist entrepreneurship to work, which is the main problem with it. The bigger the population Socialism is applied, the worse it becomes. The more diverse and mobile the people are, the worse Socialism works. So you are trading something that is guaranteed to work, for something known to fail.
 
The sites I quoted are not socialist. Not Marxist. Simply sites that provide studies of the way things are in reality.

No they are not. They are quite simply, BLOGS who are being paid to promote a Marxist-Socialist agenda.

As I said, it is paramount to your objective to promote a certain perception, to make that perception seem real to stupid people, and the Internet is a very effective tool for that purpose. The very first indicator you should realize is the way information is always presented from a one-sided perspective. There is no "fair evaluation" happening there, it's all presented in neat organized manner, like a lawyer in a courtroom, presenting a case from his client's perspective. Studies and statistics are used to fog objective reasoning, and make points that are pure conjecture and falsehood. Facts are manipulated and distorted to fit the agenda as well, and you come here with thousands of other little minions, to do the word of mouth advertising for them. Why? Because you are either brainwashed into being a Marxist Socialist, or you're just plain stupid.
 
The sites I quoted are not socialist. Not Marxist. Simply sites that provide studies of the way things are in reality.

No they are not. They are quite simply, BLOGS who are being paid to promote a Marxist-Socialist agenda.

As I said, it is paramount to your objective to promote a certain perception, to make that perception seem real to stupid people, and the Internet is a very effective tool for that purpose. The very first indicator you should realize is the way information is always presented from a one-sided perspective. There is no "fair evaluation" happening there, it's all presented in neat organized manner, like a lawyer in a courtroom, presenting a case from his client's perspective. Studies and statistics are used to fog objective reasoning, and make points that are pure conjecture and falsehood. Facts are manipulated and distorted to fit the agenda as well, and you come here with thousands of other little minions, to do the word of mouth advertising for them. Why? Because you are either brainwashed into being a Marxist Socialist, or you're just plain stupid.
Define blogs. I provided no blog as a source. Though you are trying as hard as possible to cover them up. You really lack any credibility. And your lying shows a complete lack of integrity.

If they are paid for opinions, prove it. By whom.

You have no game, boss. You are simply full of opinions that you can not support with any source. There are sources, of course, but if you use them you know that they will be recognized as the bat shit crazy con web sites that you live in.l Pure bs. Your opinion, me boy, just like mine, has NO VALUE. Hell, you do not even know what a market system is. Nor what it takes to make capitalism work, in the libertarian form you preffer. Because you are simply posting dogma. Just dogma.

By the way, anyone who actually thinks that there are Marxists out there getting ANY following is really full of shit. And you believe it. Or at least you say it. Jesus, you are a tool.

You know better. You are a simple con tool. If someone is getting paid to post, it would be you.
 
Lets see, boss. Any source that I produce you say is socialist and Marxist. Because ....... Oh, yeah. I am supposed to believe you because you are.....
But you post con dogma, over and over, and can produce no proof of anything.
Just does not pass the giggle test. You are incapable, therefor, of conversation. Totally incapable. You just post dogma.
So, I am wasting my time with you. I prefer to deal with people who have class. Integrity. Truth. So you are now officially on ignore.
 
True, these are very socialist nations by today's standards but all these nations are also capitalist. By regulating capitalism and socializing selected selected segments of society, we have the best of both worlds, safety nets that protect the most vulnerable in society and free markets that maximizes production of goods and services.

I fundamentally disagree in "the best of both worlds" here, because it's not the best. It works in low population, low consumer-driven nations, with non-diverse local populations, just like it works for many typical American neighborhoods and communities, or developments and subdivisions. Any time you take the ideology to larger and larger populations, it falters. The common bond is lost, it simply fails due to corruption that is unavoidable, and the stifling of capitalist venture, which means jobs and economy.

The ONLY thing in our society that works well on what you would call a "socialist" platform, is covering the cost of our military. That is the only legitimate expenditure our government has under the Constitution, the rest of this stuff is created from mangling the Constitution over the years. Defense spending is about the only expense we should all share as a nation, the rest of the stuff should be up to states, cities, communities, to vote on and decide to do for their own people, if that's what they want. It's not the Federal Government's constitutional authority to be our Socialist King and Ruler.

When we subvert FREEDOM in order to install socialism, we are not helping anything, we are not making life better for anyone. We are destroying the only thing that has been the promise for the hopeless, going on 250 years. Our system which allows the poorest of the poor to attain and amass wealth beyond their wildest dreams. It's why people have risked their lives on makeshift rafts to come here. Free market capitalism is not the problem, it's the solution, not just the BEST, but the ONLY solution.

Now, as I said, in small isolated communities, maybe everyone can agree on pooling resources to pay for something they will benefit from, and that's fine with me, I have no problem with socialistic philosophy on small scale in a community, it sometimes is the best answer to a problem. It simply fails on a large level, and it has to stifle capitalist entrepreneurship to work, which is the main problem with it. The bigger the population Socialism is applied, the worse it becomes. The more diverse and mobile the people are, the worse Socialism works. So you are trading something that is guaranteed to work, for something known to fail.
Well, I wouldn't call China, probably the most socialist nation on the list, a low population, low consumer-driven nation, with non-diverse local populations. Scandinavia with a population of over 50 million certainly doesn't meet your criteria either.
 
Well, I wouldn't call China, probably the most socialist nation on the list, a low population, low consumer-driven nation, with non-diverse local populations. Scandinavia with a population of over 50 million certainly doesn't meet your criteria either.

Well, first of all, I dealt with China earlier, the "average joe" in China doesn't have free government health care and cradle to grave entitlements, they have perhaps a bowl of rice, and make slave wages. This is after 70 years of Maoist Socialist policy. The recent economic success of China, is largely due to heavily capitalistic policies, forbidden under Mao.

There is no such country as Scandinavia, that is a region in Northern Europe, comprised of mostly Germanic people who live in isolated communities and very low consumerism. It is several countries, all with variations of Marxist and Capitalist systems, and as I said, this is where Socialism tends to work, in small groups who are not diverse.

The only thing close to a semi-successful large scale Marxist system you will find in history, was the former Soviet Union. It failed! The average person in the former Soviet Union is on par with our homeless. They have little opportunity, because they don't have the freedom that we enjoy in America.
 
Well, I wouldn't call China, probably the most socialist nation on the list, a low population, low consumer-driven nation, with non-diverse local populations. Scandinavia with a population of over 50 million certainly doesn't meet your criteria either.

Well, first of all, I dealt with China earlier, the "average joe" in China doesn't have free government health care and cradle to grave entitlements, they have perhaps a bowl of rice, and make slave wages. This is after 70 years of Maoist Socialist policy. The recent economic success of China, is largely due to heavily capitalistic policies, forbidden under Mao.

There is no such country as Scandinavia, that is a region in Northern Europe, comprised of mostly Germanic people who live in isolated communities and very low consumerism. It is several countries, all with variations of Marxist and Capitalist systems, and as I said, this is where Socialism tends to work, in small groups who are not diverse.

The only thing close to a semi-successful large scale Marxist system you will find in history, was the former Soviet Union. It failed! The average person in the former Soviet Union is on par with our homeless. They have little opportunity, because they don't have the freedom that we enjoy in America.
Sorry, I lied. I just read another of your posts, and could not resist:
Well, first of all, I dealt with China earlier, the "average joe" in China doesn't have free government health care and cradle to grave entitlements, they have perhaps a bowl of rice, and make slave wages. This is after 70 years of Maoist Socialist policy. The recent economic success of China, is largely due to heavily capitalistic policies, forbidden under Mao.
You dealt with china??? No you didn't. You said a couple of ignorant sentenses about it. Dipshit. China is a mess, still. For lots of reasons. And, me ignorant con tool, no one I have ever seen suggested that china either pre, during or after Mao was anything else besides a mess. But it is what it is. And since you are such an expert on china, you must be lying when you suggest they do not have gov health care:

"The New Rural Co-operative Medical Care System (NRCMCS) is a 2005 initiative to overhaul the healthcare system, particularly intended to make it more affordable for the rural poor[citation needed]. Under the NRCMCS, the annual cost of medical coverage is 50 yuan (US$7) per person[citation needed]. Of that, 20 yuan is paid in by the central government, 20 yuan by the provincial government and a contribution of 10 yuan is made by the patient."
Health in China - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
So, not as good as France, or any of the other of the 35 industrialized countries of the world, but way more than we have in this country. You should really check out your dogma before spreading it.

There is no such country as Scandinavia, that is a region in Northern Europe, comprised of mostly Germanic people who live in isolated communities and very low consumerism. It is several countries, all with variations of Marxist and Capitalist systems, and as I said, this is where Socialism tends to work, in small groups who are not diverse.
Profound, boss. Really. No such country as Scandanavia. Everyone understands that. And there are no MARXIST economic systems there, dipshit. What a stupid statement. Check out your info just a bit. Jesus.
Small groups who are not diverse??? Right. Should we take your word again??? Try looking at the google, dipshit. You are completely ignorant of Scandanavia. Hardly small groups that are not diverse. Reminds me of talking with the retarded. You really have no basis for conversation. Any back up for that stupid statement?? Of course not.

The only thing close to a semi-successful large scale Marxist system you will find in history, was the former Soviet Union. It failed! The average person in the former Soviet Union is on par with our homeless. They have little opportunity, because they don't have the freedom that we enjoy in America.
Yes, indeed. You also think Russia was marxist??? You need to understand something about marx before you make that statement. Makes you look stupid again. But it had communist components, true enough. And it worked for a few decades. But Libertarianism has NEVER worked. And communism would never work in the long run. So, based on that concept, they must both be failures. How about that. Just what I have always said. Neither pure capitalism,or libertarianism, nor communism, ever had a chance to succeed. As you seem to be learning. NAAA. You would never actually learn.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top